32 Nobel Square Also known as Specialist Medical Transport Limited

Updated 11 April 2022

32 Nobel Square is operated by Specialist Medical Transport Ltd. 32 Nobel Square location is the registered location. The main service provided is emergency and urgent care transporting patients with a range of physical and mental health conditions. The service also transports patients from events to hospital in the event of a medical emergency, however due to COVID-19 there had been no events in the 12 months prior to inspection. This falls under the scope of regulation. The service has seven secure emergency ambulances if required, for example, to transport patients assessed at risk of absconscion, and 13 patient transport vehicles for the transfer of patients to and from various locations including to hospital.

The service is registered with CQC for the regulated activity transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely and treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

This service is registered with CQC under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in respect of some, but not all, of the services it would normally provide. There are some exemptions from regulation by CQC which relate to types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. 32 Nobel Square provides services to patients taking part in or attending a sport or cultural event. These types of arrangements are exempt by law from CQC regulation.

The registered manager for this service had been in post since April 2019.
We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection on 10 January 2022. We have not previously carried out a ratings inspection of this service at this location. To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people’s needs, and well-led.

Where we have a legal duty to do so, we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate. Throughout the inspection, we took account of what staff told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This will be the first time we have rated the service.

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

Updated 11 April 2022

We rated the service as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients who used the service, acted on them and mostly kept appropriate records.
• Staff provided good care. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Services were available seven days a week.
• 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 and other involved in their care.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. 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 were committed to improving services.
• Managers had a formal risk register in place and contingency management plans to manage risks.
• Recruitment processes were standardised, appropriately processed and all relevant documentation in individual staff files to ensure staff suitability was clearly evidenced.
• Policies were available and completed, annually reviewed and provided with all detail required to guide staff using up to date procedures.

However:

• The service did not have a documented appraisal and supervision system for staff development.
• Staff did not always ensure risk records were up to date and comprehensively completed.

Updated 11 April 2022

Please refer to emergency and urgent care report.

Updated 11 April 2022

We rated the service as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients who used the service, acted on them and mostly kept appropriate records.
• Staff provided good care. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Services were available seven days a week.
• 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 and other involved in their care.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. 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 were committed to improving services.
• Managers had a formal risk register in place and contingency management plans to manage risks.
• Recruitment processes were standardised, appropriately processed and all relevant documentation in individual staff files to ensure staff suitability was clearly evidenced.
• Policies were available and completed, annually reviewed and provided with all detail required to guide staff using up to date procedures.

However:

• The service did not have a documented appraisal and supervision system for staff development.
• Staff did not always ensure risk records were up to date and comprehensively completed.