The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Kent Central Ambulance Service Ltd

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 4, The Progress Estate, Bircholt Road, Maidstone, ME15 9YH (01622) 677771

Provided and run by:
Kent Central Ambulance Service Ltd

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

All Inspections

18 January 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Our rating of this location stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt supported and valued, and they focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and stakeholders to plan and manage services. Staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • The service did not use a standardised risk assessment tool where a disclosure and barring service check identified a record of concern.

We rated this service as good because it was well-led. We inspected safe but did not rate it. We did not inspect nor rate effective, caring and responsive.

28 May 2019

During a routine inspection

Kent Central Ambulance Service Ltd is operated by Kent Central Ambulance Service Ltd. The service provides emergency and urgent care and patient transport services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 28 May 2019, along with a patient telephone interview on 29 May 2019.

This was the service’s first inspection since registration.

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.

NHS non-emergency patient transport services help people access healthcare in England. It is free at the point of use for patients who meet certain medical criteria and are unable to use public or other transport. This service was subcontracted to provide support to primary contract holders that supply this service to the people in Maidstone and the surrounding area including parts of London.

The service also provides high dependency transfers for patients travelling between hospitals. This is the only aspect of the service that is provided under the emergency and urgent care section.

The main service provided by this service was patient transport services. Where our findings on patient transport services – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the patient transport services core service.

We rated it as Good overall because:

  • The service ensured that only staff that had completed mandatory training could be involved in patient care.

  • The service adapted to the changes in infection control practice for several contract holders.

  • The service had high standards of cleanliness and had invested in an external service to monitor their cleaning performance.

  • The service had effective systems to keep their equipment maintained.

  • The service kept patient records up to date and secure.

  • Patient feedback was positive about the services staff being courteous and caring.

  • Stakeholders reported the services as very professional and working together for service improvement.

  • Staff reported the leadership team were very open and approachable. Also, that they felt supported in their roles by their managers.

However,

  • The service did not record investigation outcomes for all incidents or document reasons for not having investigation outcomes.

  • The service was not reporting concerns of abuse directly to the local authorities but changed their practice immediately on being told this was their responsibility.

  • The service had limited support for patients who required additional support with communication.

  • Crews had limited awareness of the service’s vision and strategy.

  • The service did not have a structured approach to governance.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with one requirement notice that affected patient transport services and emergency and urgent care services. Details are at the end of the report.

Dr Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London and South)