PSS Birmingham

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not observe any patient journeys during this assessment and were unable to speak to patients.

The service took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. They coordinated care with other services and providers to ensure a smooth transfer for the patient. The ambulances were designed to keep the patients and staff safe. The call staff in the hub asked the booking staff if there were any specialist requirements for the patients. They then ensured there were reasonable adjustments made where required. Where patients had specific requests, they tried to accommodate them. For example, they had a patient who had learning difficulties, and they liked to colour. The ambulance staff helped them do this in the vehicle. Other patients have music requests whilst on the journey and this is accommodated. We were told of examples where the manager had met with providers prior to transporting a patient to create a bespoke transport plan to ensure safe and comfortable transport for vulnerable patients.

Stakeholders told us the staff are very professional, they had experience working with mental health patients and had a rapport with most of their patients that they have transported before and made adjustments to suit the patients needs.

We did not observe any episodes of care on this assessment.

There were reasonable adjustments made so that patients with mobility requirements could access and use the services. They had an ambulance which had space for a stretcher for patients who needed it. Where patients had steps to access their building, 5 members of staff were sent to ensure they could assist the patient safely.

We did not observe any patient journeys during this assessment and were unable to speak to patients.

The service mostly worked well to understand the needs of the patient prior to transporting them but at times, risks were not anticipated or communicated well to the HUB who completed the booking. This meant at times, there were unanticipated risks, and the staffing was not appropriate. The RMN always did a second risk assessment on arrival to the job. We found that journeys were cancelled where ambulance staff found patients to be inappropriately sectioned or had mobility needs they could not meet. Where patient transfers have been cancelled, this was communicated to the hub and the booking teams.

The staff all had a background in mental health services and had a good understanding of the needs of the patients. Stakeholders fed back that the staff treated their patients with kindness and were professional.

Cancellations were recorded and processes were in place to ensure patients were transported in a co-ordinated and responsive manner.

We did not observe any patient journeys during this assessment and were unable to speak to patients.

Patients were all sectioned under the MHA and whilst the staff informed them of their transfer, they did not provide them with any written information as this was not required. Staff completed the patient transfer form, which was detailed, for each patient journey. No patient identifiable details were taken.

The service had a bespoke online booking system where patient details were taken and then all patient journeys were recorded on paper. These were in line with the Accessible Information Standard. These were audited monthly. They had plans to move to being fully paperless. Information governance was included in the mandatory training programme; 90% of contracted staff and 100% of bank staff had completed this.

We did not observe any patient journeys during this assessment and were unable to speak to patients.

Patients were encouraged to give feedback by completing a paper form at the end of their journey. The manager told us these were not filled in often as patients were either too unwell or did not want to; they found it hard to get feedback. They were looking to introduce tablets with an electronic feedback form to make it easier for patients to complete. There was a folder in the ambulance with advice about how to make a complaint. Managers told us they did not get many complaints, and they mostly came from the providers who had booked the service rather than the patient. They had 12 complaints between May and October 2024. All complaint actions and lessons learned were tracked and managers told us, and we saw in information shared following the assessment, that they shared these with staff. However, staff we spoke to were not aware of learning from complaints and felt they did not get feedback on these.

The service had a clear policy for complaints management. Each complaint was assigned to an operations manager and then reviewed by a senior manager. There was a monthly governance meeting where complaints were discussed. Managers told us they shared feedback from complaints with staff and learning was used to improve the service. This learning was also embedded in the clinical supervision paperwork and discussed at clinical supervision meetings to ensure all staff had taken it on board; not all staff had attended their clinical supervision meetings. Most staff we spoke to told us they were not aware of learning from complaints.

We did not observe any patient journeys during this assessment and were unable to speak to patients.

People were mostly able to access the service when they needed it. All bookings were made through the hub and jobs were assigned based on the patients’ risk factors. All staff were required to be on site within 75 minutes of the job being allocated and at the pickup location within 2 hours. Where the number of jobs exceeded the number of teams available that day, the hub staff used a list of bank staff who had given their availability to staff the ambulances. If they did not have staff available, they did not accept the job.

The service was open 24 hours a day 7 days a week. They assessed all booking requests on an individual basis but there were some exclusions. All patients had to be medically fit as the ambulances were not equipped to manage medical emergencies and they would not move patients who required a cage.

We did not observe any patient journeys during this assessment and were unable to speak to patients.

The team at the service was diverse with people from different protected characteristics which ensured equality in the workplace. Managers did not discriminate against gender, race or religion when they recruited.

Staff worked as a team with stakeholders to plan complex care journeys. We were told they had meetings with providers who required their services in advance of the booking day where patients had specific needs.