Medevent Limited

Updated 21 March 2023

Medevent Ltd is registered with the CQC to provide the following regulated activity;

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

• Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely

The provider has had a registered manager in post since registration.

The service was dual registered as an ambulance provider and for providing domiciliary care. This inspection was of the ambulance provision only.

Medevent provided a full range of patient transport services transported all patients including those with additional needs, which included bariatric and paediatric patients. They did not provide secure transport for patients with mental ill-health. The service also provided services in the event medical sector and training which are currently not regulated by CQC.

The provider’s activity levels for January 2022 to December 2022 were:

• 12905 patient transport journeys subcontracted from local NHS ambulance trust,
• 4100 patient transport journeys subcontracted from local NHS hospital trust

The providers main operating base was from their operations base in Huddersfield.

The main service provided by this provider was patient transport services.

Updated 21 March 2023

The service had not been previously inspected. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well, the service demonstrated high levels of cleanliness and good adherence to the principles of infection prevention and control. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. The service met agreed response times, performance data demonstrated high levels of consistent compliance. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent and mandatory training compliance was completed. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. The service proactively encouraged both negative and positive feedback as they valued all feedback as an opportunity to improve. People could access the service when they needed it.

However:

• The service could not evidence that it had a robust system of governance nor that it managed risk effectively.
• The service provided patient information in English only with no access to other languages or formats.

Updated 21 March 2023

The service had not been previously inspected. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, and assessed patients’ food and drink requirements. The service met agreed response times. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• The service could not evidence how it managed risk nor how it operated effective governance systems.
• Patient information was only available in English, there were no other languages or formats available.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring and responsive, although leadership requires improvement.