- Ambulance service
East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust Headquarters
All Inspections
29, 30, 31 January and 3, 4 February 2014
During a routine inspection
Our judgment for each outcome reflects the overall picture for the trust. However we found significant variation regarding response times, availability of vehicles and equipment and support for staff across the trust areas.
Since our last inspection the trust had made improvements in some areas, particularly, responses to less urgent calls, infection control, reduction of staff sickness rates, staff engagement and monitoring of equipment. We acknowledged the work of the current executive team in addressing these issues and the plans for further improvements. However the trust was still failing to meet the minimum standard for response times to the most urgent calls. They also did not have sufficient numbers of vehicles available at all times. This was due to the trust not always ensuring that the right number and type of vehicle was in the right place at the right time. Additionally the trust did not have sufficient numbers of suitably skilled and experienced staff available at all times to meet the needs of people who used the service.
People who used the service told us they were happy with the care and treatment they received. However some people told us of delays they had experienced waiting for an ambulance to arrive. We saw records which confirmed this.
People told us vehicles were clean and ambulance staff always wore protective equipment to help prevent the spread of infection. We saw that the trust had policies and procedures in place to ensure vehicles received regular decontamination.
We found that in most areas of the trust, vehicles carried enough equipment to meet people's needs and that this equipment was regularly maintained. However staff in some areas told us they did not always have access to the equipment they may require. We found that vehicles were not always available for staff to carry out their duties. Staff told us they experienced delays in finding replacement vehicles if their vehicle was taken off the road and that response to calls had been delayed or missed due to lack of vehicles.
Since our last inspection the trust has recruited additional staff, however all staff we spoke with in frontline and operational roles told us they felt they did not have enough staff or skilled and experienced staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The majority staff in all areas of the trust told us they did not feel supported and did not have access to training which would help them develop their career and gain professional qualifications. We saw that staff in some areas did not have regular supervision and appraisal.
The trust had a clear complaints policy and investigating procedure. We saw that the majority of complaints were responded to and concluded within the agreed timescales. People told us they had not experienced any difficulty in raising a complaint or receiving a response.
After careful consideration, we have concluded that the trust is taking reasonable steps to address the breaches in regulations and therefore it would not be appropriate to take further enforcement action at this point. However as the impact for people waiting to be transported to hospital remains as a moderate concern, we have escalated our concerns to the Trust Development Authority who have the responsibility to support the trust in taking the necessary action to improve its service. We will continue to closely monitor the trust, inspecting it as required and working with NHS England to review its progress.
4, 5 March 2013
During a routine inspection
Whilst we have an overall judgement for each outcome the evidence we gathered varied across the region with some differences between areas in terms of response times, feedback from people, staff approach and support from management.
People who used the service felt EMAS staff treated them with dignity and respect and were happy with the care and treatment provided. However some told us they had experienced delays in receiving treatment due to ambulances not arriving in a timely manner. This was confirmed by records we saw.
Staff from other emergency services and health professionals told us they worked well with EMAS.
People we spoke to felt that there were not enough staff employed by EMAS to meet their needs. This view was shared by the staff we spoke with and confirmed by records we saw. Staff told us that they felt supported by their local manager and had the opportunity to attend training. However we saw that less than half of all staff had received regular supervision or an annual appraisal.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of service and action plans were developed.
1 September 2012
During an inspection looking at part of the service
People said the staff had explained their treatment, involved them in decisions and assessed their pain. They felt reassured and safe with the staff and most people said the staff were caring and professional.
19 July 2011
During an inspection in response to concerns
People said the staff had explained their treatment, involved them in decisions and assessed their pain. They felt reassured and safe with the staff and most people said the staff were caring and professional.
We found that the trust took action when things went wrong and stood down staff so that the matters could be investigated and the public and staff protected. However, we found that the trust had work to do to make sure that their recruitment processes were in line with legal requirements and that their patients were fully protected.
24 November 2010
During a routine inspection
People we spoke with told us that the staff had involved them in making decisions about their care and treatment. 'They explained the checks they were making and were patient and friendly, courteous and polite. I was happy with the decisions they made, and the care I received. When we got to the hospital they explained to the nurses and doctors what they had done.' Another person told us, 'they explained what they were going to do, and were very kind and helpful.'
The majority of people who used the patient transport service we spoke with were positive about it. 'I was transported carefully to the vehicle in a wheel chair, I was asked if I already had my personal belongings and medicine before being transferred to another hospital.' Another person told us, 'the driver and assistant helped to lock my door at home and helped me in the ambulance, they brought me through to reception and found a wheelchair for me.'
People told us they felt safe during the journey and said that an ambulance crew member helped them to put on their seatbelt, and made sure that any wheelchairs were secure. One person commented that, 'staff were very helpful, helping to lock my door they were very attentive.'
Occasionally people reported they had experienced problems. They commented to us that the suitability of the transport, equipment and support available varied across the region. One person told us, 'my father had an appointment which required an ambulance, a wheelchair and at least two people to assist him, what turned up was a car and a driver, this meant that the appointment was cancelled and rescheduled.'
The trust have to work in co-operation with many other providers throughout the region and we looked at whether this resulted in a co-ordinated service for people. The people who were surveyed by the local involvement network mainly responded positively about transport arrangements made for them. A carer who was escorting a person to the hospital told us, 'the ambulance staff always pass information on well.
A person who uses the service told us, "I have a standing arrangement and the clinic arrange it for me." We spoke with a person in an accident and emergency (A&E) department who told us that their records had been transferred from the ambulance staff to A&E staff. This meant they could receive continuity of care.
Some people had experienced some difficulties when revised information had not been communicated to ambulance staff. "When cancelling an ambulance sometimes they would not get the message and come anyway, which is a waste of time."
The people who were surveyed by the local involvement network stated that the ambulance they travelled on was acceptably clean. Comments included, there was "no odour or litter," "it was cleaner than my car," "very clean, can't complain about that," and "the ambulance and staff always look smart." They also said that they were satisfied that the ambulances were safely maintained. One said, "they checked on the seatbelt after I had put it on and checked the wheelchairs were secure.'
People who were surveyed told us they were satisfied with the management of their medication and stated, "I was asked if I already had my personal belongings and medicine before being transferred to another Hospital."
People we spoke with who use the patient transport service were very happy with the consistency of support provided. We spoke to a carer who was escorting a person to the hospital and they told us, 'patient transport is a first class service.' Another person who was being transferred by ambulance told us, 'I usually have the same people to collect me and they are very good.'
We found that most of the people interviewed by the local involvement network did not know how to complain if they were concerned about the service. The majority of people interviewed did not know who to approach to make complaints or offer compliments. The trust have some difficulty in that they cannot display documents in the ambulances as this may compromise infection control. The staff we spoke with told us they tell people how make complaints if they are unhappy. Only one person who was interviewed knew about the patient advice and liaison service (PALS). Those who did know how to complain or give compliments were most likely to speak to the ambulance staff at the time or later, 'I suppose I would contact the ambulance service.'