Archived: Bullhouse Mill Ambulance Station

Updated 10 December 2019

Bullhouse Mill Ambulance Station is operated by W S Medical Limited. It is an independent ambulance service based in Pennistone near Sheffield. The service operates throughout the North of England and Wales. It is registered with the CQC to provide transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely. In addition, the service provides event medical cover, medical education and training, and are a supplier of medical and first aid products.

The service has had a registered manager since June 2018.

Updated 10 December 2019

Bullhouse Mill Ambulance Station is operated by W S Medical Limited. It is an independent ambulance service based near Sheffield. The service provides a patient transport service with the main contractor of their services being an NHS ambulance provider.

They are registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely. In addition, they provide public and private event medical cover, first aid training and are a supplier of medical and first aid products. These activities are not regulated by CQC and were not inspected.

The service has had a registered manager since June 2018, when it was first registered with CQC.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology on 24 April 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.

The service provided by this provider was a patient transport service.

The provider had not been inspected previously. Following the inspection, we rated the service as Requires improvement overall because:

• There were no systems in place to ensure the safeguarding lead was always available to provide advice and the was no system in place to identify who would cover for them when they were unavailable.

• There was no formal documentation of dynamic risk assessments made by staff in relation to patients, to monitor the booking of patient transports, and assess if the decisions taken following the assessment had been correct.

• Staff recorded patient information handwritten on paper note pads. This was not a secure process and could not guarantee the security of personal patient information.

• There was nothing in the non-emergency patient transport services (NEPTS) policy which outlined to staff what they should do if they considered the patient did not fit the eligibility criteria or the assessed the risk of transporting them to be too great or the task was above their capabilities.

• On one of the PTS ambulances there was no shoulder restraint belts, no spare battery for the pulse oximeter and both fire extinguishers had not been tested and could not be guaranteed to work properly in the event of a fire.

• Only 33% of staff had had an appraisal recorded within the last 12 months.

• None of the managers had had an appraisal within the last 12 months.

• The service was failing to achieve the handover time and access and flow performance targets.

• The feedback posters and patient feedback forms in the ambulances we inspected were not available in any other language but English.

• The information to provide feedback was not in a format that could be used by patients with visual or cognitive impairment.

• There was programme of audits across a range of areas, however, there were gaps at the weekly and monthly periods which did not provide assurance the audits were being done regularly and the information was being received by managers or shared with staff in a timely way.

However, we found the following areas of good practice;

• There was a designated cleaning station in the corner of the garage with supplies of cleaning products and equipment.

• Staff were observed cleaning an ambulance stretcher with sterile wipes, disposing of the clinical waste in an appropriate bag and washing their hands after a patient transport.

• The staff files we reviewed contained a current disclosure and barring service (DBS) check, proof of identity, the right to work in the UK, training qualifications and a health check declaration.

• There was a translation guide for various non-English languages in the vehicles we inspected. The guide had several questions in the selected non-English language next to the translation in English. It also contained a British Sign Language (BSL) alphabet.

• Staff were observed treating a patient with compassion and kindness, respecting their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.

• There was a clearly defined management team with allocated responsibilities.

• Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported, respected and valued by their managers.

• The service had a process to identify organisational risks and how to manage them.

Following this inspection, we told the provider they should make two improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, and they must make 13 improvements, we also issued the service with two Requirement Notices in relation to Regulation 13: Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, and Regulation 17: Good Governance, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

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