Archived: East Anglia Medical Care Ltd

Updated 20 July 2021

East Anglia Medical Care Limited (EAMC) is operated by East Anglia Medical Care Limited. East Anglia Medical Care Limited location at Lower Farm Park is the registered location. Prior to lockdown as result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the main service provided was emergency and urgent care through the provision of first aid medical cover at sporting events. The service also transports patients from events to hospital in the event of a medical emergency. This falls under the scope of regulation. Since March 2021, the service expanded their business to provide adhoc subcontracted patient transport to patients with mental health conditions. The service has two emergency ambulances for the transfer of patients to hospital, one rapid response vehicle to transport patients from where they were injured at events to the medical tent. The patient transport service vehicle was used for events, and one ambulance with secure aspects, for example, a secure area in the rear section of the ambulance for mental health patient transfers.

The service is registered with CQC for the regulated activity Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely. There had been no emergency transfers in the twelve months prior to our inspection.

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 particular types of service and these are set out in Schedule 2 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. EAMC 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 current registered manager for this service has been in post since 3 March 2021.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection on 12 May 2021. We have not previously inspected this service at this location. The service was inspected last in October 2018, at its previous location, and report published on 28 January 2019. 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.

Updated 20 July 2021

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, understood how to protect people from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept appropriate care 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.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• 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 staff were committed to improving services.

However:

• There was no formal risk register in place.
• References for recruitment were not always documented to ensure staff suitability was clearly evidenced.
• Policies were not always completed with all detail required to guide staff using up to date procedures.
• Patient consent was not clearly documented to evidence consent to care.

Updated 20 July 2021

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect people from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept appropriate care 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.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• 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 staff were committed to improving services.

However:

• There was no formal risk register in place.
• References for recruitment were not always documented to ensure staff suitability was clearly evidenced.
• Policies were not always completed with all detail required to guide staff using up to date procedures.
• Patient consent was not clearly documented to evidence consent to care.

Updated 20 July 2021

The provider was registered with CQC to provide emergency and urgent care. The transport of patients from events to hospital in the event of a medical emergency falls under the scope of regulation. However, they had not delivered any emergency and urgent care since March 2020 as a result of the pandemic. The main service was patient transport services and the leadership and management arrangements were the same for each core service. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the Patient transport service section. We rated this service as good for safe, effective and responsive. We could not rate caring because there was no patient contact or events work since March 2020. We rated well led as requires improvement.