Hatzola Ambulance Service Ltd

Updated 6 May 2022

Hatzola Ambulance Service Ltd was registered in November 2020 and had actively provided a service from January 2021. The service was a registered ambulance service delivering emergency first response and medical care to the community. Hatzola ambulance services Ltd are not a commissioned service, they are a charity funded by a private donor. The service offered a rapid response ambulance provision to people within the community.

“Hatzola” is the Hebrew word for save or rescue. The service is situated in a Jewish community and has many Jewish employed staff and volunteers within the service. The service responds to anyone within the local community and patients could be from any ethnicity, cultural or religious background.

They were registered to provide transport services, triage and treatment of disease, disorder or injury. The service had a registered manager and nominated individual and was mostly staffed by volunteers from within the community.

Hatzola provide a service 24 hours a day, seven days a week and primarily covers the Prestwich, Broughton Park and Whitefield communities in Manchester. The service attended 4,933 calls in the last year, and on average 14 calls per day. The service responded to all calls received as they did not undertake triage or any form of categorisation on the telephone.

We last inspected the service on 31 March 2021 and 08 April 2021, where we undertook a focused inspection which meant that the service was not rated during the previous inspection.

We carried out an unannounced inspection on the 01 March 2022 of Hatzola Ambulance Service Ltd. We inspected urgent and emergency care services and rated it as good overall, good in all domains; safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

Updated 6 May 2022

Hatzola provide an enhanced local community ambulance response that supports the local population, this is separate and on top of the locally commissioned NHS ambulance service.

We rated it as good because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills, including safeguarding, to all staff and made sure everyone completed it. The service controlled infection risk well and kept equipment clean. Staff identified and quickly acted upon patients at risk of deterioration. The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to provide the right care and treatment. Records were clear, up to date, stored securely. The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. The service managed patient safety incidents well.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. The service monitored and met national standard response times. The service made sure employed and volunteer staff were recruited, trained and supported to support patients in the service. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and provide support and development. Staff worked together as a team to benefit patients and to provide good care. Key services were available seven days a week to support timely patient care.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. Staff provided emotional support to patients, families and carers to minimise their distress. They understood patients' personal, cultural and religious needs. Staff supported and involved patients, families and carers to understand their condition and make decisions about their care and treatment.
• The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and the communities served. The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. People could access the service when needed and received the right care promptly. It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about the care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Leaders operated effective governance processes, throughout the service. Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and identified actions to reduce their impact. The service collected reliable data and analysed it. All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services.

However:

• We did not see evidence that the service undertook hand hygiene audits.
• The service monitored national guidance but low compliance levels were not always challenged and changes to improve practice were not always evidenced.
• The service did not always follow their FPPR policy which stated that all directors will confirm on an annual basis that circumstances have not altered and that they still meet the regulations.
• The service could not demonstrate how they were assured that enough responders with the right skills were available to attend calls, as the service did not have a rota system. The service should consider how they gain assurance that there was always enough staff available to attend to patients.

Updated 6 May 2022

We rated it as good. See summary above for details.