Helimed house

Updated 29 July 2022

Helimed house is operated by the East Anglian Air Ambulance (EAAA). EAAA is a registered charity that provides a helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) and rapid response service 365 days a year from its air base in Norwich. In summer 2021, EAAA became the first HEMS service in the East of England to fly its air ambulances 24 hours a day, including night missions. The service responds to demands from the local NHS ambulance trust emergency control room, where critical care paramedics triage emergency 999 calls and liaise with EAAA staff to deploy the most appropriate resource to emergencies.

The service covers the East Anglian region and between 1 June 2021 and 31 May 2022, the service was tasked to 2,549 missions and treated 1,812 patients, 126 (7%) were children aged below 16 years and 1,686 (93%) were adults. As part of the services strategic aim to offer 24 hours per day, seven days a week cover by its air ambulances and upgrade its existing facilities for the future, the service moved into its new headquarters in the spring of 2021. The environment had been designed and planned specifically to provide resources for the whole team. Design stages had involved stakeholders from across the East of England, including staff, volunteers, patients, relatives, engineers, funders and a designated culture group with representatives from across the service to discuss and design the new facilities. The result was a new build that was open and light with user-friendly spaces to encourage interaction between people, whilst maintaining safety and confidentiality.

We inspected the service using our comprehensive inspection methodology, inspecting the domains of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. We carried out our inspection on the 21 June 2022, at its location in Norwich. We spoke with staff, volunteers, five patients and two relatives, reviewed 15 patient records including medicines and documents in relation to the safe operation of the service, for example policies and procedures.

We last inspected the service on the 5 February 2018 and did not rate the service. At this inspection we have rated the service as outstanding for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led, and outstanding overall.

Updated 29 July 2022

We have not previously rated this service. We rated it as outstanding because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it. Staff and managers worked together with external stakeholders to safeguard their patients.
• The service-controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment, vehicles and premises visibly clean.
• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises, vehicles and equipment was innovative and kept people safe. Staff were trained to use them. Staff managed clinical waste well.
• People were protected by strong comprehensive safety systems, and a focus on openness, transparency and learning. A proactive approach to anticipating and managing risks to people who used services was recognised as being the responsibility of all staff. Staff identified and quickly acted upon patients at risk of deterioration. External organisations were actively engaged in assessing and managing anticipated future risks.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed and adjusted staffing levels and skill mix and gave agency staff a full induction.
• Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date, and stored securely. They had innovative ways to make patient information more easily available to all staff providing care.
• The service used strong comprehensive systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. The service took a proactive approach to improving their medication safety.
• There was a truly holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment to people who used the service. There was a safe use of innovative and pioneering approaches to care. New evidence-based techniques and technologies were used to support the delivery of high-quality care.
• There was a genuinely open, and “Just” culture in which all safety concerns raised by staff and people who use the service were highly valued as integral to learning and improvement. All staff were open and transparent, fully committed to reporting incidents and near misses. The level and quality of incident reporting showed the levels of harm and near misses, which ensured a robust picture of quality. There was ongoing, consistent progress towards safety goals reflected and learning was based on a thorough analysis and investigation of things that went wrong.
• Staff assessed and monitored patients regularly to see if they were in pain and gave pain relief in a timely way. They supported those unable to communicate using suitable assessment tools and gave additional pain relief to ease pain.
• All staff were actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes. Opportunities to participate in benchmarking, peer review and research were proactively pursued.
• The continuing 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 and share best practice.
• Staff, teams and services were committed to working collaboratively and had found innovative and efficient ways to deliver more joined-up care to people who use services.
• Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent. They knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.
• People were truly respected and valued as individuals. Feedback from people who use the service and those who were close to them was continually positive about the way staff treat people. People thought that staff went the extra mile and the care they received exceeded their expectations. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity.
• People’s emotional and social needs were highly valued by staff and were embedded in their care and treatment. Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and bystanders to minimise their distress.
• The involvement of other organisations and the local community was integral to how services were planned and ensured services met the needs of local people and the communities served.
• People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care in a timely way. The service had developed innovative ways to improve the access people had to the service.
• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. There were active reviews of complaints and how they were managed and responded to, and improvements were made as a result across the service.
• Leaders had an inspiring shared purpose, strove to deliver and motivate staff to succeed. Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff.
• The service had a mission for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action, developed with all relevant stakeholders. The strategy and supporting objectives were stretching, challenging and innovative while remaining achievable. These were aligned to local plans within the wider health economy. Leaders and staff understood and knew how to apply them and monitor progress.
• There was a strong culture that was centred on the needs of patients. Managers at all levels across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values to deliver high quality person-centred care. The service provided opportunities for career development and staff could raise concerns without fear. Staff were proud of the organisation as a place to work and spoke highly of the culture.
• Leaders operated effective governance processes, throughout the service and with partner organisations. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service.
• Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and took actions to reduce their impact. They had plans to cope with unexpected events.
• The service collected a wide range of reliable data and analysed it. Staff could find the data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure. Data or notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as required.
• Leaders and staff used innovative approaches to gather feedback from people who used services and the public. This was then used to plan and manage services. They collaborated with local, national, international partner organisations to help improve services for patients. There were consistently high levels of constructive engagement with staff, patients, relatives and external stakeholders.
• All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. The leadership drove continuous improvement and staff were accountable for delivering change. Safe innovation was celebrated. There was a clear proactive approach to seeking out and embedding new and more sustainable models of care. Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research.

Updated 29 July 2022

We have not previously rated this service. We rated it as outstanding because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, and they knew how to apply it. Staff and managers worked together with external stakeholders to safeguard their patients.
• The service-controlled infection risk well. Staff used equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They kept equipment, vehicles and premises visibly clean.
• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises, vehicles and equipment was innovative and kept people safe. Staff were trained to use them. Staff managed clinical waste well.
• People were protected by strong comprehensive safety systems, and a focus on openness, transparency and learning. A proactive approach to anticipating and managing risks to people who used services was recognised as being the responsibility of all staff. Staff identified and quickly acted upon patients at risk of deterioration. External organisations were actively engaged in assessing and managing anticipated future risks.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed and adjusted staffing levels and skill mix and gave agency staff a full induction.
• Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date, and stored securely. They had innovative ways to make patient information more easily available to all staff providing care.
• The service used strong comprehensive systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. The service took a proactive approach to improving their medication safety.
• There was a truly holistic approach to assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment to people who used the service. There was a safe use of innovative and pioneering approaches to care. New evidence-based techniques and technologies were used to support the delivery of high-quality care.
• There was a genuinely open, and “Just” culture in which all safety concerns raised by staff and people who use the service were highly valued as integral to learning and improvement. All staff were open and transparent, fully committed to reporting incidents and near misses. The level and quality of incident reporting showed the levels of harm and near misses, which ensured a robust picture of quality. There was ongoing, consistent progress towards safety goals reflected and learning was based on a thorough analysis and investigation of things that went wrong.
• Staff assessed and monitored patients regularly to see if they were in pain and gave pain relief in a timely way. They supported those unable to communicate using suitable assessment tools and gave additional pain relief to ease pain.
• All staff were actively engaged in activities to monitor and improve quality and outcomes. Opportunities to participate in benchmarking, peer review and research were proactively pursued.
• The continuing 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 and share best practice.
• Staff, teams and services were committed to working collaboratively and had found innovative and efficient ways to deliver more joined-up care to people who use services.
• Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients’ consent. They knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.
• People were truly respected and valued as individuals. Feedback from people who use the service and those who were close to them was continually positive about the way staff treat people. People thought that staff went the extra mile and the care they received exceeded their expectations. Staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity.
• People’s emotional and social needs were highly valued by staff and were embedded in their care and treatment. Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and bystanders to minimise their distress.
• The involvement of other organisations and the local community was integral to how services were planned and ensured services met the needs of local people and the communities served.
• People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care in a timely way. The service had developed innovative ways to improve the access people had to the service.
• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. There were active reviews of complaints and how they were managed and responded to, and improvements were made as a result across the service.
• Leaders had an inspiring shared purpose, strove to deliver and motivate staff to succeed. Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff.
• The service had a mission for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action, developed with all relevant stakeholders. The strategy and supporting objectives were stretching, challenging and innovative while remaining achievable. These were aligned to local plans within the wider health economy. Leaders and staff understood and knew how to apply them and monitor progress.
• There was a strong culture that was centred on the needs of patients. Managers at all levels across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values to deliver high quality person-centred care. The service provided opportunities for career development and staff could raise concerns without fear. Staff were proud of the organisation as a place to work and spoke highly of the culture.
• Leaders operated effective governance processes, throughout the service and with partner organisations. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities and had regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service.
• Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and took actions to reduce their impact. They had plans to cope with unexpected events.
• The service collected a wide range of reliable data and analysed it. Staff could find the data they needed, in easily accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were integrated and secure. Data or notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as required.
• Leaders and staff used innovative approaches to gather feedback from people who used services and the public. This was then used to plan and manage services. They collaborated with local, national, international partner organisations to help improve services for patients. There were consistently high levels of constructive engagement with staff, patients, relatives and external stakeholders.
• All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. The leadership drove continuous improvement and staff were accountable for delivering change. Safe innovation was celebrated. There was a clear proactive approach to seeking out and embedding new and more sustainable models of care. Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research.

We rated this service as outstanding because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led.