Rapid Response Secure Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Systems and processes enabled staff to assess patient needs. Care was delivered in line with best practice. The service worked within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). Staff spoke positively about the service and were supported to perform their job roles.

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.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Staff were aware of the importance of observing patients to understand and react to risks. Staff understood when restraint was used it needed to be the least restrictive. De-escalation was a fundamental part of staff’s work.

Patients’ needs were continually being assessed to provide safe care. The service worked with commissioners to identify specific patient risk factors and current presentation. Staff completed handovers with providers to ensure accurate patient information was shared. Staff completed dynamic risk assessments when conditions changed. Use of restraint was documented and investigated.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care. We received positive feedback from partners. Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHP) told us that staff were skilled at using de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for restraint.

Staff felt the policies and processes supported them to deliver good care. Staff understood the importance of minimising the use of restraint by using de-escalation techniques. Staff felt they had enough time to support patients. Staff could access policies from their vehicles if needed.

Policies and procedures were based on legislation and best practice. There were processes to review policies and ensure these were kept up-to-date. There were monitoring tools to identify risks and deteriorating patients. Staff received training in caring for patients with individual needs.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Staff felt they worked well with internal and external teams. Staff told us they received good information from commissioners which enabled them to support patients. Leaders supported staff if they arrived at a booking and it was unsafe to transport a patient. Leaders said they supported new staff by ensuring they were placed with experienced crew members.

We received positive feedback from partners. AMHPs told us there were clear lines of responsibility for patients and they worked together to ensure patient risks were identified and mitigated. AMHPs told us the booking process and onsite risk reviews enabled good levels of information sharing.

Records showed staff were attending regular meetings. Staff discussed operational performance with a focus on improving care for patients and reducing risks.

The service worked with commissioners using standardised risk assessment criteria to ensure consistent communication between providers of care. There were processes to enable breaks on long journeys at appropriate places based on patient needs.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Staff told us it was important to talk to patients to support them during challenging moments. They said engaging people in conversation reduced instances of restraint.

The booking process, handovers with providers and risk assessments enabled staff to effectively understand a patient's needs.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care.

Staff understood the importance of keeping people informed if a transport was running late. Leaders could track vehicles and take action to minimise delays.

The learning from safety incidents was shared with staff. We saw evidence of investigations into safety incidents and learning from these was shared with staff at their meetings.

During the assessment we were unable to observe patient care or speak with patients. Therefore, we were unable to directly capture the experiences of people being cared for. However, partners we contacted did not have any negative feedback about Rapid Response Secure Care. We received positive feedback from partners. AMHPs told us staff always check legal authority to transport patients who were detained under the MHA.

Staff understood the importance of gaining consent. Staff knew the legal framework for patients who were detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. They understood the need to check paperwork and carry the required forms when a patient was in their care. Staff knew how to check if a patient had a ‘do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation’ (DNACPR) in place.

Staff received training in the MHA, MCA, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Policy and procedures detailed consent processes for adults and children. Policies detailed the processes to ensure staff had the legal authority to transport patients detained under the MHA. The booking process captured if a patient had a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) in place.