Elite EMS Headquarters

Updated 21 June 2022

Elite Emergency service is a large independent ambulance service that provides urgent and emergency support to NHS ambulance services. The service has a new purpose-built operation centre which is in Tamworth, Staffordshire, with several other ambulance bases centres across the country.

Since the last inspection in February 2018 there were no compliance actions/enforcement that the service needed to address.

The current registered manager has been registered with the CQC since 2018.

The service provides the following services:

Emergency and Urgent Care Services (EUC)

Elite provides paramedic and technician crewed emergency ambulances to several NHS ambulance trusts mainly in the midlands, and the south of England.

Elite provides comprehensive cover to events including sporting meetings and festivals. Unless transport to hospital is provided such provision is outside of the scope of registration. Provision within the scope of registration is reported under the EUC core service.

Patient Transport Services (PTS)

Elite provides patient transport ambulances to several NHS ambulance trusts Part of the provision is secure transport for patients suffering from mental health conditions. PTS services are also provided to private individuals including repatriation. Repatriation services when paid for through travel insurance are outside of the scope of registration. The provider also offers support to people who need help moving and repositioning in their own homes. This too falls outside of the scope of registration as does the transport of people.

Elite provide around 1000 patient journeys each month of which the vast majority are on behalf of NHs Ambulance Trusts, around 25 are transfers for dental appointments and less than 10 are privately commissioned.

Updated 21 June 2022

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 mostly 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 and 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, 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.
• 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:

• There were not systems in place for reporting significant events for NHS patients and some incidents had not been reported to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as required by the regulations.
• While the processes to support the duty of candour were appropriate for private patients, for NHS patients the commissioning ambulance service completed this as identified in the commissioning contracts.
• The guidance for dealing with unresolved complaints for NHS patients did not reference the Health and Public Service Ombudsman.
• The service did not always meet agreed response times.
• Staff did not consistently ensure patient records were completed when transferring patients into the care of a third-party provider.
• NEWS scores were not always recorded accurately However, there had been a noticeable improvement over time.

Updated 21 June 2022

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 mostly 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 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.
• 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:

• While the processes to report deaths and significant events were appropriate for private patients for NHS patients they passed the responsibility to the commissioning ambulance service
• While the processes to support the duty of candour were appropriate for private patients for NHS patients they passed the responsibility to the commissioning ambulance service.
• The guidance for dealing with unresolved complaints did not reference the Health and Public Service Ombudsman and incorrectly stated that the CQC could deal with complaints.

Updated 21 June 2022

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 mostly 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 and 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, 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.
• 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:

• There were not systems in place for reporting significant events for NHS patients and some incidents had not been reported to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) as required by the regulations.
• While the processes to support the duty of candour were appropriate for private patients, for NHS patients the commissioning ambulance service completed this as identified in the commissioning contracts.
• The guidance for dealing with unresolved complaints did not reference the Health and Public Service Ombudsman.
• The service did not always meet agreed response times.
• Staff did not consistently ensure patient records were completed when transferring patients into the care of a third-party provider.
• NEWS scores were not always recorded accurately However, there had been a noticeable improvement over time.