Archived: Multi Health Medical Services UK

Multi Health Medical Services UK is operated by Multi Health Medical Services UK Limited. It is an independent ambulance provider based in Morley, West Yorkshire. The provider`s main service was providing medical cover at public and private events. We did not inspect this part of their service at this inspection.

The provider was registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Transport services, triage, and medical advice provided remotely.

• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

The provider had provided emergency and urgent care for one patient in the last 12 months which was a transfer from an event to hospital. The provider had not carried out any patient transport services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 21 March 2018.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led?

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we do not rate

We regulate independent ambulance services but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• There was no information and guidance about how to complain made available and accessible to everyone who used the service either on the provider website or carried on the PTS vehicle.

• Staff did not know what a never event was.

• The recording and management of never events and near misses were not included in the provider`s policy documents.

• Staff did not know what the basic principles of duty of candour legislation were and how to apply them.

• The provider did not have a duty of candour policy.

• The provider did not have a system to record and audit the issuing of non-prescription drugs by staff

• The process reported in the operations manual in relation to the issuing and auditing of non-prescription drugs was not aligned with processes operating within the service.

• The provider did not carry out regular hand hygiene or personal protective equipment audits to ensure levels of compliance.

• The provider`s ambulance did not carry a stretcher with a six point harness.

• The provider did record any health and safety audit activity.

• The provider did not have a risk register or a system to manage foreseeable risk.

• The provider did not have a business continuity plan.

• The provider did not have a system to measure and record levels of staff adherence to policies and procedures.

• The four monthly meetings between the managing director and director of operations and the six monthly meetings with the management team and the Emergency Care Practitioner (ECP) did not have an agenda and the minutes and actions were not recorded.

• The provider did not have a system to ensure the operations manual and policies within it were updated with relevant information in a timely manner.

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

• The director of operations and the temporary team leader had a Business and Technology Education Council (BTEC) Level three advanced driver qualification.

• The temporary team leader who was acting as safeguarding lead had undertaken safeguarding level three training for children and adults.

• Staff we spoke with could describe different signs of potential abuse that could lead to a safeguarding referral.

• The provider`s ambulance, was visibly clean and all equipment carried on the vehicle was in date and where required had been tested in accordance with portable appliance testing (PAT).

• The station environment was spacious, clean, tidy and well organised.

• There was evidence that equipment had been regularly tested and test dates were recorded in an equipment log book.

• Staff completed checks of the vehicle and equipment carried on it before deployment. There was evidence that the checks had been recorded.

• The director of operations was aware of the principles of assessing mental capacity and making best interest decisions.

• The leaders had been visible because they worked on all operational activity.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take eight actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make four other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with three requirement notices that affected urgent and emergency care. Details are at the end of the report.

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (area of responsibility), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals