ABC Event Cover

Updated 14 January 2020

ABC Event Cover is operated by ABC Training Services Ltd. The service opened in November 2014. It is an independent ambulance service in Burton on Trent, Staffordshire. The service provides first aid medical cover for events within Staffordshire and other counties.

The service has had the same registered manager in post since November 2014. The service has been inspected twice before. In January 2017 the service were found to be meeting the required standards, however we did not have the powers to rate them at the time. They were inspected again in January 2019 and were rated as requires improvement overall, but good for caring and responsive. The service was issued three requirement notices and a formal letter under Section 10 of the Health and Social Care Act (2008).

Updated 14 January 2020

ABC Event Cover is operated by ABC Training Services Ltd. The service provides emergency and urgent care.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced inspection on 20 November 2019.

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.

The only core service provided by ABC Event Cover was urgent and emergency services.

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as Requires improvement overall.

• The service did not always manage medicines well. Storage of medicines and medical gases was not always in line with best practice. We were not assured all staff understood what constituted an incident and therefore was concerned incidents were not reported. We were not assured the processes in place to ensure all consumable equipment was in date was always effective.

• The service completed limited monitoring of the effectiveness of the service. The service was still working towards ensuring all staff had been appraised.

• The governance processes in place were not always effective to ensure all policies, procedures and guidance were referencing the most up-to-date information. The provider had made progress to ensuring staff personal files contained the required information however not all information was available and no identified timescale for this to be completed in. Systems to manage risk did not always identify valid risks. We identified risks to staff and the operational risks which the management had not considered, therefore had not mitigated against them. The service had minimal engagement with patients and the public.

However, we found areas of good practice:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records.

• The service followed nationally recognised best practice guidance and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.

• We had limited information about the care and treatment provided by staff, and therefore did not rate caring. However, the information we did receive demonstrated staff provided good care and treatment in line with best practice guidance and gave them pain relief when they needed it.

• 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. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

• Leaders ran services using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued.

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

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 14 January 2020

Urgent and emergency services was the only core service provided. The service mainly provided care and treatment to patients at events and discharged them at the scene which is not regulated activity. They had a small number of contracts which required them to convey patients to hospital if their physical condition required it, which is regulated activity. The events they mainly covered were sporting events and county fairs/fetes.

The ratings for this service stayed the same, we rated them as requires improvement. Although we saw some improvements in all areas, we rated safe and well-led as requires improvement and effective and responsive as good. We did not rate caring due to insufficient evidence, although the small amount of information we did receive demonstrated staff were caring.