• Ambulance service

Archived: AmbuServ Limited Nottinghamshire

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

44 Langford Road, Mansfield, NG19 6QG (01623) 232081

Provided and run by:
AmbuServ Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 21 February 2020

AmbuServ Limited is operated by AmbuServ Limited Nottinghamshire. The service opened in 2014. It is an independent ambulance service in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire. The service primarily serves the communities of the Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire as an adhoc tertiary provider. AmbuServ Limited was inspected previously in February 2017. At the first inspection requirement notices were issued against regulations 13, 15, 19 and 20 (HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014). At this inspection we found, these breaches have now been met.

The company has two directors, an operations manager, a business support manager as salaried staff and 16 crew working on zero hours contracts. There are eight patient transport ambulances and one pool car. Our inspection, on the 08 and 14 January was Ambuserv’s second CQC inspection.

The service has had a registered manager in post since December 2014.

Overall inspection


Updated 21 February 2020

AmbuServ Limited is operated by AmbuServ Limited Nottinghamshire. The service provides a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 8 and 14 January 2020.

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 main service provided by this service was patient transport services.

This was the first time we have rated this service. We rated it as Good overall.

  • 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 managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their transport, and had access to good information. The service was available seven days a week.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • 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 transport.
  • Leaders ran services well 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. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving transport. Staff were clear about their roles. The service engaged well with patients and other providers to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However, we also found the following issues that the service needed to improve:

  • The provider was unaware that equipment testing needed to be carried out by a specialist engineer. For example, stretchers, ramps wheelchairs and oxygen piping.
  • There was no oxygen advisory sticker on the outer door to the building
  • Some of the training was not provided by a level three trainer. For example, oxygen and manual handling.

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 that affected patient transport services. Consideration was made of the ratings principles during our quality assurance process as the balance of evidence was good the principles were overridden in the safe domain. Details are at the end of the report

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Midlands region), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals