The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Archived: Acute Ambulance & Medical Services

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

7 Burners Lane, Kiln Farm, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MK11 3HA 0345 686 0301

Provided and run by:
Acute Ambulance & Medical Services Limited

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

14 June 2022

During a routine inspection

This was first time this service has been rated. 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. Staff assessed risks to patients and acted on them. 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. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Key services were available seven days a week.
  • 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, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. 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 did not control infection risk well.
  • The service did not always record medicines accurately.
  • The service did not always complete patient records thoroughly.
  • The service did not have a robust staff recruitment and induction process.

10 January 2018

During a routine inspection

Acute Ambulance & Medical Services (A.A.M.S) is operated by A.A.M.S. The service provides a patient transport service all over the UK.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology, on 10 January 2018; we carried out the announced part of the inspection.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led?

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we do not rate

We regulate independent ambulance services but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • There was an incident reporting process in place and staff knew how to report incidents.

  • Vehicles were visibly clean and we saw cleaning schedules in place. We saw staff washing their hands and using hand-cleansing gel.

  • There was sufficient personal protective equipment available on all of the vehicles we inspected on-site.

  • There were systems in place to ensure that vehicles were regularly serviced and that they had an MOT.

  • The service had enough staff to safely carry out the booked patient transfers.

  • The service employed competent staff and ensured all staff were trained appropriately to undertake their roles.

  • The registered manager provided staff with a comprehensive induction; staff completed the induction prior going out on the road.

  • The fleet manager based on site carried out an inspection of each vehicle on a weekly basis, this included checks of equipment and roadworthiness.

  • We reviewed the A.A.M.S training matrix, which showed us that all members of staff were compliant with their mandatory training.

  • Staff were trained in safeguarding up to level three for both adults and children.

  • There was an infection prevention and control, (IPC) policy in place.

  • Staff completed patient transfer record sheet for each job, which were completed daily.

  • Staff kept an electronic and paper log of patients who had accessed the service.

  • We saw and staff told us that the company’s registered manager was visible. The staff felt supported and that managers would go out of their way to resolve any issues.

  • Regular governance meetings took place. At the meetings, the management team discussed matters of importance including risk.

  • Managers actively sought feedback from patients and staff and used this information to identify how the service could improve.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements to help the service improve.

Details are at the end of the report.

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals