Lincs and Notts Air Ambulance Charity

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated outstanding.

We rated caring as outstanding. Patients were truly respected and valued as individuals. They were always treated with respect and kindness during their care, and this extended to their loved ones, friends and families and others at the scene. Staff made sure to protect people’s dignity.

The service kept in touch with patients and families by contacting them after the incident if appropriate, answering questions and providing support and pastoral care. Staff felt valued, respected and supported at work and were enabled to be their best.

This service scored 95 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients told us staff treated them and their families with great respect and dignity. Family members at the scene, particularly children, were also cared for when a patient was taken to hospital. Staff reassured patients who were scared of treatment or the helicopter. One family thanked the service for looking after their pet after they had to leave to travel with the patient. After incidents, patients and their families were invited to the service headquarters to meet the staff who had looked after them and ask questions or raise any concerns. One patient noted that this "aftercare was particularly positive".

Staff told us that treating people with kindness and dignity was a key part of their work. They were aware of modern-day privacy pressures, such as mobile phone cameras, and worked with the police and fire service to cordon off areas to ensure patient dignity was maintained as much as possible. Staff used various tools to help those patients with speech or language challenges, including action cards, for example, the paramedic symbol card. They had access to a language line for translation or would ask for help from adult family or friends.

There was exceptional consideration of families when the patient had potentially received life-threatening injuries. For example, in certain circumstances, there was concerted effort to contact the patient’s family to enable them to speak to the patient by phone should the patient need to then be sedated.

The patient liaison officer shared patient feedback with teams and was also able to advise on good practice around scene management if police evidence was required. They also gave pastoral assistance to patients and families in cases of bereavement.

The service held a number of events with patients and families. This included a Christmas remembrance service on the base with staff and people who had received the service.

Patients and families told us staff asked questions to learn about who they were and if they had any specific physical, emotional or cultural needs. Some patients told us that following the incident, as part of aftercare, the service introduced them to other patients and their families who had experienced similar situations. They said this was helpful in enabling them to come to terms with the incident.

Staff told us they considered each patient an individual person with specific needs and preferences. They would ask patients their names, about their background and ask them if they had any cultural or other specific requirements in treatment and care.

The service had guidance for caring for people with specific needs, including bariatric patients, maternal patients, newborn babies, and those patients with acute mental health issues. There was also an aftercare strategy which outlined the post-incident service available to patients and their families. The family liaison team tailored the support and care provided to patients and their families during post incident visits, including enabling carers or support staff to attend.

The service provided training around the Mental Capacity Act and most staff had completed training in care for patients with a learning disability and people with autism. At the time of the assessment, the service was undertaking a quality improvement project to enable staff to complete additional learning disability and autism training, following the release of new national guidance.

Patients and their families told us staff asked permission and explained what they were going to do before starting care and treatment, where this was clinically possible. However, in cases where patients were unconscious, the care and treatment they received at the scene was explained by the patient liaison team as part of the aftercare strategy.

Staff had regular de-briefing meetings to evaluate the care provided and to check that this reflected the patient’s preferences at the time. Staff received updates around national guidance in care for patients who may not be aware of their rights and choices, including people with a learning disability, dementia, or mental health issues.

Staff had completed training in understanding people’s rights and supporting them to maintain their independence, while making their own choices where possible. The service had also considered the impact of their treatment protocols. For example, representatives from the Jehovah’s Witnesses had worked with the service to help staff work with the strict rules for people of that faith when using blood products.

Patients told us staff listened to them and kept them informed about what was happening throughout their care. They confirmed staff gave pain relief quickly and made sure patients were comfortable. One family member told us the patient was unsettled when they regained consciousness, but they were given medication to calm them for the flight to hospital.

Leaders told us how staff members always explained their plan of care and treatment to patients, where possible. However, if a person was unconscious or unable to respond, the service adopted a ‘best interests' treatment pathway to enable the best outcome. Staff told us they would ask patients if there was anything else they could help with, for instance caring for other people at the scene or by contacting relatives.

Staff told us how people’s needs, wishes and comfort were a priority and staff acted urgently to manage pain and discomfort, concern or distress.

We had exceptional feedback from staff about how the service cared for their wellbeing and promoted a safe and caring culture.

Managers told us staff were encouraged to share information about any protected characteristics or preferences when they joined the service so there could be any adaptions needed. The service made adjustments to enable staff to perform to the best of their ability.

The service had staff surveys and staff were encouraged to share concerns with managers at any time. Staff told us that due to the traumatic nature of some of the work, staff could request counselling or other support if they required it. The service had wellbeing groups to provide emotional support for colleagues. Staff confirmed they were encouraged to develop their careers by taking up external training and courses, some of which were funded by the service.

The service had policies which supported the wellbeing of staff at work. These included dignity at work, wellbeing and stress management, and neurodiversity policies. The service had two Freedom to Speak Up Guardians who supported staff who might want to talk to someone else about their concerns and not their direct manager or colleagues. Staff also had mentors who could be approached for specific support or general wellbeing.