Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd

Updated 14 February 2022

Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd is operated by Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd. It is an independent ambulance service in Manchester, Lancashire. The service provides ambulance transport services to both adults and child patients across England, from five sites located in; Audenshaw, Rotherham, Goosnargh, Cramlington and Watford.

The service opened in 2018 and has had a registered manager in post since November 2018. It carried out the following regulated activity:

• Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely; and
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

For the period of December 2020 to November 2021, the service carried out the following types of journeys:

• 28827 patient transport journeys;
• 14090 emergency department patient journeys;
• 5106 mental health patient journeys; and
• 952 urgent care journeys

We have inspected Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd previously in July 2019 and we rated the service as good overall. During our last inspection we did not identify any breaches of regulations and we did not carry out any enforcement action.

Updated 14 February 2022

Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd is operated by Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd. The service provides a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 3 July 2019.

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.

We rated it as Good overall. We found the following areas of good practice:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills and made sure that all staff completed it. This included important topics such as basic life support.
• The service had controlled infection risk well. There were sufficient amounts of personal protective equipment available for staff to use and all ambulances were visibly clean.
• Staff followed the corporate policy for waste management processes. Waste was appropriately labelled and segregated.
• The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises, vehicles and equipment kept people safe. Staff were trained to use equipment. The service had a system to report faults and had acted to fix faulty items when needed.
• We reviewed eight patient record forms, they were all completed accurately and appropriately.
• Feedback from patients using the service were positive and included that staff were caring and respectful.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff knew what constituted an incident and could demonstrate how to use the electronic reporting system.
• The control coordinator completed a basic risk assessment for each patient and removed or minimised risk. These were completed as part of the booking form.
• The service undertook Disclosure and Barring Service checks for all new staff.
• The service did not have any medicines on vehicles. Staff had access me Nitrous Oxide and a medical gases policy was in place and staff had received training on how to store, handle and administer it.
• The service monitored compliance against national guidance or policies
• The service had a policy in place for mental capacity, consent and best interest. This was important as it meant that staff could follow the process when documenting a best interest decision or if a patient had refused transport.
• Managers informed us that the service took account of individual needs and preferences, we saw provisions in place to support patients with complex needs and comment cards from relatives praised staff for supporting their relatives; including those living with dementia and suffering from stroke.
• The service had a vision and strategy. Managers could tell us about the service and what they were aiming to achieve moving forward. They had supporting evidence on how they were working towards objectives and their strategy.
• The service had a formal system to assess, mitigate and control both clinical and non-clinical risks. This meant risks had been identified or that controls were in place to reduce the level of risk when needed.

However

• We did not see evidence of team learning, or team briefs, from safeguards that had been raised.
• We found none of the vehicles we inspected carried paediatric specific equipment. Information provided by the provider post inspection advised there were paediatric harnesses on urgent care service vehicles.
• We found crews did not document actions when a patient deteriorated and therefore we were not assured the appropriate lines of escalation were taken.
• We found some policies did not contain references and therefore we could not be assured the information within the polices was in line with up to date and current guidance and standards.
• We found ambulances did not have equipment to transport children safely.
• We found staff were not familiar with Gillick competence. This was important as the service were able to transport children.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 14 January 2020

The provider is an independent ambulance service that provides urgent care services. It delivered non-urgent patient transport mainly on behalf of the local NHS ambulance trusts or local authorities.

We found the provider had sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies. Staff had access to safeguarding policy and knew who and how to escalate any concerns to. Staff documented consent and were familiar with legislation supporting do not attempt cardiac pulmonary resuscitation.

Leaders were visible and had processes were in place to ensure the service was managed safely.

Updated 14 January 2020

The provider was an independent ambulance service that provided patient transport services. We found that the provider employed sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies. Equipment was well maintained, and environmental checks were carried out on a daily basis. Feedback from patients and those close to them was positive and illustrated crews met the needs of their service users. Leaders were visible and there were appropriate management processes in place to govern performance and manage risks.