Thruxton Industrial Estate

Updated 15 June 2022

Thruxton Industrial Estate is operated by Ambulance Services 24 Ltd. It is an independent ambulance service based in Andover, Hampshire.

The provider was registered with CQC on 19 February 2021 to carry out the regulated activities transport, triage and medical advice remotely and treatment of disease, disorder and injury form the location Thruxton Industrial Estate.

The service carried out patient transport services for a local NHS ambulance trust which included a dedicated patient transport ambulance for a local acute NHS trust to support the discharge of patients from hospital. The service also carried out some event work, which included transporting patients from event sites to local acute NHS hospitals if needed.

At time of the inspection the registered manager had left employment with the service in November 2021 but had not yet applied to cancel their registration with CQC. The service had, however, appointed a new manager, who had applied to CQC to be the registered manager.

The main service provided by this ambulance 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 service.

This was the first time the service had been inspected since registration in February 2021.

Updated 15 June 2022

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Staff did not keep accurate patient records.
• Staff did not always store and manage medicines safely. Storage of medical gases did not ensure the safety of people. There were out of date medicines in kitbags and in the medicine cupboard.
• The service could not demonstrate they always controlled infection risks and cleaned vehicles and equipment.
• Not all equipment was calibrated to ensure it was working effectively.
• Leaders did not use systems to manage performance and quality effectively. Policies did not always reflect the service provided.

However,

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Most staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care. Managers took action to make sure staff were competent.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Leaders supported staff to develop their skills. The service had a vision and there was a strategy to realise the vision. The service had process for patients and clients to engage with them. Leaders demonstrated a commitment to improving the service.

Updated 15 June 2022

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Staff did not keep accurate patient records.
• Storage of medical gases did not ensure the safety of people.
• The service could not demonstrate they always controlled infection risks and cleaned vehicles and equipment.
• Not all equipment was calibrated to ensure it was working effectively.
• Leaders did not use systems to manage performance and quality effectively. Policies did not always reflect the service provided.

However,

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Most staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and supported patients’ drink requirements during patient journeys. Managers took action to make sure staff were competent.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Leaders supported staff to develop their skills. The service had a vision and there was a strategy to realise the vision. The service had process for patients and clients to engage with them. Leaders demonstrated a commitment to improving the service.

We rated this service as requires improvement good because safety and leadership required improvement. Effective and responsive were good and there was insufficient evidence to rate caring.

Updated 15 June 2022

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Storage of medical gases did not ensure the safety of people. There were out of date medicines in the medicine bags and the monitoring process failed to identify this.
• The service could not demonstrate they always controlled infection risks and cleaned vehicles and equipment.
• Not all equipment was calibrated to ensure it was working effectively.
• Leaders did not use systems to manage performance and quality effectively. Policies did not always reflect the service provided.

However,

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Most staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service managed incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care. Managers took action to make sure staff were competent.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Leaders supported staff to develop their skills. The service had a vision and there was a strategy to realise the vision. The service had process for patients and clients to engage with them. Leaders demonstrated a commitment to improving the service.

Emergency and urgent care is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was patient transport services. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the patient transport service section.

We rated this service as requires improvement good because safety and leadership required improvement. Effective and responsive were good and there was insufficient evidence to rate caring.