Practice Education

Financial pressures were managed so that they did not compromise the quality of care.

Information and analysis was used proactively to identify opportunities to drive improvements in care. Service developments and efficiency changes were developed and assessed to understand their impact on the quality of care. The impact on quality and financial sustainability was monitored effectively

All staff prioritised safe, high quality, compassionate care and there was a culture of collective responsibility between all staff

Feedback from people who used the services was consistently positive about the way staff treated people. There was a strong person-centred culture. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity

The continued development of staff skills, competence and knowledge was recognised as being integral to ensuring high quality care. Staff were proactively supported to acquire new skills

Training and education was a high priority and had a strong focus for the service. The service worked in close collaboration with their sister training and education organisation. They provided training programmes for the emergency care assistant and ambulance technician role and supported their staff through these programmes.

There was a clear vision and strategy, driven by quality and safety.

Complaints were managed and investigated thoroughly and feedback and training was given to staff.

The leadership was knowledgeable about quality issues and priorities, understood what the challenges were and took action to address them. Performance information was used to improve the service

The leadership strived for continuous improvement. There was a clear proactive approach to seeking out and embedding new and more sustained models of care and governance processes. Leadership was strong, open, honest and supportive

There was effective and comprehensive processes in place to identify, understand, monitor and address current and future risks. Audit processes functioned well and had a positive impact in relation to quality governance, with clear evidence of action to resolve concerns

The organisation had the governance processes and information to manage current and future performance. The information used in reporting, performance management and delivering quality care was accurate, valid, timely and relevant.

Key performance indicators were audited and results were excellent.

An audit of patient report forms identified if pathways were followed correctly and we saw evidence of learning when this was not the case

There was a genuinely open culture in which all safety concerns raised by staff, people who use services and from the NHS Trusts from which the service sub-contracted, were highly valued as integral to learning and improvement