Archived: Mr Henry Ward - Company Office

We found appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. Since the previous inspection the provider had compiled employee files for each member of staff. These included a recent photograph, together with a current Criminal Records Bureau or Disclosure and Barring Service clearance at enhanced level and records of training undertaken.

We found training had been arranged for the provider and all permanent staff to cover safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant patients who used the service would be protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to provide staff with the training necessary for them to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

We found a structured system for obtaining people's views about the quality of service provided was now in place This included providing events organisers with a form for completion after an event to assess performance. We saw three of these which had been completed and returned. They were all positive and included comments of appreciation; "Always feel event is in safe hands with SES Ambulance Service" and "The day went well and your team were very attentive" were two comments recorded. This confirmed people who commissioned the service were asked for their views about the standard of service provided.

This was the first inspection of the service. We were not able to speak to people who had used the service because it was not operational at the time. We looked at a range of documents. We talked to the proprietor and an ambulance technician, both of whom were present throughout our visit.

We found a mixed picture. The service had processes in place to provide care to people. Those included the use of ambulance personnel who were also currently working with other ambulance services. Processes also included the use of a report form for recording observations, details of the support provided and of people's consent to care. The service had procedures for checking its stocks of essential supplies, the condition of its vehicles and for the prevention and control of infection.

The service did not have safeguarding procedures to protect people from the risk of abuse. It's recruitment and staff support arrangements failed to include checks that staff had the necessary qualifications, skills and knowledge for their job. The service did not have effective system to monitor the quality of the service it provided.