The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

5e Arrow Trading Estate, Corporation Road, Audenshaw, Manchester, M34 5LR (0161) 244 9995

Provided and run by:
Ambulnz Community Partners Ltd

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

All Inspections

7 Dec 2021 to 14 Dec 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We did not rate the service at this inspection.

  • 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. 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 and supported them to make decisions about their care. Staff had access to good information.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values. 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 to plan and manage services. Staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • The services risk register contained instances where a risk had been identified as being able to be mitigated, however there was no detail provided about the mitigation put in place.
  • The service did not have face to face, or equivalent, team meetings, where all staff members were present, however there were station drop-in sessions and weekly one to one meetings available.
  • The service did not always appraise staff within annual time limits.
  • Records of manager’s one to one sessions with staff were not structured or detailed in a clear way.

03 July 2019

During a routine inspection

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

24 October 2017

During a routine inspection

Manchester Medical Services is operated by Manchester Medical Services Ltd. Manchester Medical Services Ltd is registered to provide emergency and urgent care and patient transport services. Manchester Medical Services offers ambulance transport on an ‘as required’ basis and has contracts to provide pre-planned transport. Ambulance services are provided to NHS Trusts, NHS ambulance services, private hospitals and repatriation organisations. The service had not provided any emergency service since September 2017 so we inspected patient transport services only. The service had no contracts for urgent care and had no plans to deliver this going forwards.

The patient transfers include patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 going to or from mental health units.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 24 October 2017.

Report of inspection to 24 October 2017 2016 – Manchester Medical Services Ltd. Manchester Medical Services

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.

The main service provided by this service was patient transport.

S e r v ices 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:

· The provider had processes and practices to assess, monitor and improve quality and safety. Staff were knowledgeable about how to report an incident and had access to incident reporting forms including whilst on ambulances. We saw evidence and examples of incident reporting and learning from incidents.

· The service had enough skilled staff to safely carry out the booked patient transfers and ensured a minimum of two staff were allocated to each patient transfer depending on risk and need. The staffing levels and skill mix of the staff met the patients’ needs.

· All vehicles and the ambulance station were visibly clean and systems were in place to ensure vehicles were well maintained.

· All equipment necessary to meet the various needs of patients was available.

· There were effective recruitment and systems to support staff.

· The service employed competent staff and ensured all staff were trained appropriately to undertake their roles. Staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Health Act (1983) and were aware of their roles and responsibilities.

· Staff demonstrated exceptional pride in their role and we heard examples where they had shown care and compassion when treating patients. The provider sought to gain feedback from patients using a patient experience form.

· The service took account of the particular needs of patients and ensured flexibility, choice and continuity of care.

· The leaders were clear about the vision and strategy of the organisation to make sure it provided high quality care. We saw, that the leadership of the service was open, approachable and inclusive and staff confirmed this. The management had plans to continually develop the service.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

· The provider was not fully aware of their legal requirement to notify specific information to CQC. During our inspection the registered manager acted on this.

· The provider should consider having a checklist in line with FREC (First response emergency care) to aid in checking all personal kits with equipment for medical emergencies were complete.

· The provider should consider introducing team meetings as they are an invaluable  opportunity to share information and practice directly with staff.

· The provider should consider making arrangements for ongoing checks for driver  competence, such as spot checks or ‘ride outs’ by a driving assessor.

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals