• Ambulance service

Archived: LCT Ambulance Ltd

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

16 Grasmere Avenue, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW3 2JQ (020) 8755 3670

Provided and run by:
LCT Ambulance Ltd

All Inspections

19 February 2020

During a routine inspection

LCT Ambulance Ltd is operated by LCT Ambulance Ltd. The service provides a patient transport service.

We carried out a short notice announced inspection of the service using our comprehensive inspection methodology on 16, 18 and 20 December 2019. During this inspection significant concerns were identified in relation to regulatory compliance. A notice under Section 31 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 was serviced on the provider suspending registration as a service provider of a patient transport service from 24 December 2019 to 21 February 2020.

We carried out a short notice announced focused follow up inspection of the service on 19 February 2020. This inspection focused on the issues highlighted in the Section 31 notice under the key questions safe, effective and well led. Following this inspection, the suspension was extended until 16 May 2020 as the issues identified at the previous inspection that had led to the suspension of the service had not all been addressed.

We did not rate the service; this inspection was a focused follow up to assess the provider’s progress against concerns identified in Section 31 notice.

We did not find evidence that significant improvement had taken place and found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • We were still not assured the registered manager had the qualifications, competence, skills and experience which are necessary to manage and develop the service.

  • We were still not assured that care and treatment was provided in a safe way for service users and that the service did all that was reasonably practical to mitigate risks.

  • We were still not assured that all premises and equipment used were clean and properly maintained.

  • Systems and processes were still not established or in place to identify risk, manage performance and ensure governance of the service was followed. The provider had not taken action to address the concerns identified in the previous report.

  • We were still not assured employees of the service received appropriate support, training, professional development, supervision and appraisal as is necessary to enable them to carry out the duties they were employed to perform.

  • There was still a lack of effective recruitment procedures, and we were not assured employees were subject to the necessary background checks in line with the provider’s policy

  • We were still not assured the provider would act in an open transparent way with relevant persons in relation to care and treatment provided to service users in carrying on a regulated activity.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with seven requirement notices that affected patient transport services. Details are at the end of the report.

We did not rate this service following this inspection as we did not look at all key questions.

Nigel Acheson

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

16, 18 and 20 December 2019

During a routine inspection

LCT Ambulance Ltd is operated by LCT Ambulance Ltd and they provide patient transport services. The provider was not commissioned by any NHS provider and did not hold any contracts to provide patient transport services. They only provided services to patients who had directly contacted them and self-funded these services. At the time of our inspection most of the provider’s work was not regulated activity and therefore was not inspected as part of this inspection.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the short notice announced part of the inspection on 16, 18 and 20 December 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.

We rated it as Inadequate overall.

  • The service did not provide mandatory training in key skills to staff.
  • The service did not provide training in how to recognise and report abuse. There were no effective safeguarding systems and processes in place for staff to follow.
  • The service did not control infection risk well. Staff did not always have access to equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection.
  • The maintenance of vehicles and equipment did not keep people safe and staff did not receive training in how to use them.
  • Staff did not complete risk assessments for each patient and did not receive training to help them identify patients at risk of deterioration.
  • The service had enough staff but not all staff had the right skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm.
  • Staff did not keep detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. The provider did not record or store information about patients they transported.
  • The service did not manage patient safety incidents well. Staff were not trained to recognise incidents and near misses. The manager and staff had no knowledge or understanding of duty of candour.
  • The service did not provide care based on national guidance. The provider did not have a policy or training on the rights of patients subject to the Mental Health Act 1983.
  • The service did not collate data around response times and did not monitor the effectiveness of care and treatment.
  • The service did not make sure staff were competent for their roles. The manager did not appraise staff and staff were not supported in their development.
  • The service did not work or communicate with other agencies to provide care for patients.
  • Staff did not support patients to make informed decisions about their care or have the knowledge to support patients who lacked capacity.
  • The service did not take into account patients’ individual needs and preferences or make reasonable adjustments to help patients access services.
  • There was no evidence the service treated concerns and complaints seriously. It had limited knowledge of how to investigate them.
  • Leaders did not have the skills and abilities to run the service. They did not support staff to develop their skills.
  • The provider did not have a written vision or strategy for the service.
  • The service did not have processes and procedures in place to ensure there was an open and honest culture.
  • The service did not operate an effective governance process throughout the service. Staff were not clear about accountabilities and did not have regular opportunities to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of the service.
  • The service did not use systems to manage performance effectively. They did not identify and escalate relevant risks and issues and identify actions to reduce their impact. Staff did not contribute to decision-making to help avoid financial pressures compromising the quality of care.
  • The service did not collect data on any of their activity and therefore could not analyse it to improve the service.
  • The service did not engage with staff or the public and did not collect patient feedback.

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 issued the provider with six requirement notice(s) that affected patient transport services. Details are at the end of the report.

I am placing the service into special measures.

Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate overall or for any key question or core service, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. The service will be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement we will move to close the service by adopting our proposal to vary the provider’s registration to remove this location or cancel the provider’s registration.

Name of signatory

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals, on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

3 March 2017

During a routine inspection

LCT Ambulance Ltd provides a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the inspection on 3 March 2017. This was announced.

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:

  • The provider did not keep records of patient journeys. This meant that they were not able to evidence the volume of work undertaken or the timeliness of their service.
  • The provider had limited knowledge of the duty of candour regulation.
  • The service owner had not received training and was not able to describe adjustments to facilitate the needs of unaccompanied patients with more complex needs, such as learning difficulties or those living with dementia.
  • The provider did not have a risk register so he might not have identified and assessed key risks and issues.
  • The service policies did not contain a revision date, did not reference national guidance and were not all relevant to the service provision.
  • The provider’s website did not accurately reflect the size or nature of the services offered. This could be misleading to members of the public looking for information about the company.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service owner had annual resuscitation training.
  • The ambulance was clean, serviceable and well maintained.
  • Patients’ comments about the service were all positive about the care they had experienced.

In addition the provider also reacted promptly in response to issues raised:

  • The service owner had not completed any formal safeguarding or manual handling training at the time of our inspection, however undertook formal training and provided evidence of this after our inspection.
  • There was no fire extinguisher on the vehicle at the time of our inspection, although an oxygen cylinder was carried. This was against health and safety regulations. However a fire extinguisher and blanket were purchased and photos were provided as evidence of these installed in the ambulance after our inspection.

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 five requirement notices that affected patient transport services. Details are at the end of the report.

Professor Sir Mike Richards

Chief Inspector of Hospitals