Gateshead Hatzola Ambulance Station Also known as Gateshead Hatzola

Gateshead Hatzola office is operated by Gateshead Hatzola . The service provides remote advice and triage under their registration as a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We conducted an unannounced visit to the service on 11 February 2020.

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 had not been inspected or rated since registration. We rated it as Requires improvement overall.

• The call taker/ dispatchers and responders had not attended accredited safeguarding training or had a formal safeguarding qualification from an accredited training provider.

• The provider did not have a system or process in place which covered daily equipment checks on their ambulance.

• The provider did carry out infection prevention control audits, vehicle cleaning audits, vehicle deep cleaning audits and hand hygiene audits.

• The providers patient record forms (PRF) did identify patient risk but did not include an overall patient risk assessment and what response to take in relation to that overall risk.

• The providers PRF did not contain hospital handover information.

• The provider could not guarantee confidential patient information was not being seen by people outside Gateshead Hatzola because of the existence of a carbonated copy of the PRF.

• The provider did not store medication with the original packaging and patient information leaflet.

• The provider did not have a policy for patients being transported to hospital with their own medication.

• The provider did not have any key performance indicators which could be audited and reviewed to improve service delivery.

• The providers major incident plan had not been tested by way of exercise or practically since the service had registered with CQC.

However, we found the following areas of good practice;

• The provider had a robust system of asset tagging.

• The provider had fall back systems for the telephony which ensured the service would not be lost.

• The provider had strong links to the community served.

• The provider had secure management of information.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must make 13 improvement and should make four other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with three requirement notices that affected Patient Transport Services. Details are at the end of the report.

Name of signatory

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (area of responsibility), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals