The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

UNIT 2C

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 2C, Concord Farm, School Road, Rayne, Braintree, Essex, CM77 6SP (01376) 617110

Provided and run by:
Medics24 Limited

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

All Inspections

24 January 2023

During a routine inspection

UNIT 2C is operated by Medics24 Limited. UNIT 2C provide support to event organisers, in need of event medical cover. Events primarily included sporting events including regular medical support at football matches. UNIT 2C has 6 vehicles and 36 staff including paramedics, emergency medical technicians and assistant medics.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection of the registered location on 24 January 2023.

The main service provided by Medics24 Limited was first aid and medical cover for events. Events are not within our scope of regulation and we do not inspect events. However, at some events, the service provided emergency transport. Emergency patient transfers fall into our scope of regulation and thus require inspection. Within the last year, the provider transferred 5 patients via ambulance, from an events site to a local emergency department. We inspected this service under our urgent and emergency care framework.

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

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff mostly had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risks well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care.
  • 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.

However:

  • The services safeguarding policy did not reflect best practice
  • The service had limited communication aids to assist patients who may have additional communication needs.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, responsive and well led. We did not have sufficient evidence to rate caring.

19 and 26 October 2017

During a routine inspection

UNIT 2C is operated by Medics24 Limited. UNIT 2C provide support to event organisers, in need of event medical cover. Events include football matches, triathlons and horseracing. UNIT 2C supply rapid response vehicles crewed by paramedics, emergency medical technicians and assistant medics.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 19 October 2017, along with an unannounced visit to the site on 26 October 2017.

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 Medics24 Limited was first aid and medical cover for events. Events are not within our scope of regulation and we do not inspect events. However, at some events, the service provided emergency transport. Emergency patient transfers fall into our scope of regulation and thus require inspection. Within the last year, the provider had had to transfer five patients via ambulance, from an events site to a local emergency department. We inspected this service under our urgent and emergency care framework.

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 a clear ethos of patient safety and delivering a high standard of medical care.

  • Records were completed appropriately and stored securely.

  • The vehicles and all areas of the service we inspected were visibly clean, well-organised, and in line with infection control policies and procedures.

  • Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.

  • Policies and procedures were based on best practice, legislation and relevant national guidance and were easily accessible by staff.

  • There was evidence of effective oversight and management while the service continued to grow and develop.

  • All staff had completed advanced life support (ALS) or immediate life support (ILS) training and this was checked yearly by the registered manager.

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

  • Upon reviewing medical gases, we found two oxygen cylinders that had expired and a cylinder of medical nitrous oxide and oxygen mixture that had no expiry date.

  • Risks were not formally recorded on the service risk register. On our unannounced visit, we found three risks had been added to the risk register.

  • The service did not provide staff with translation support.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals, on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals