You are here

Archived: Sneath Avenue Office

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 11 May 2018

Hatzola Northwest provides emergency and urgent care. We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on the 13th and 14th February 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 areas of good practice:

  • All reported incidents were documented and investigated. We were assured that volunteers understood what constituted an incident and that learning was shared.

  • Vehicles were properly maintained, equipped and visibly clean. All were appropriate for use.

  • Safeguarding training was delivered regularly and most volunteers demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding.

  • Call handling and response times were consistently within the provider’s targets.

  • Clinical protocols were used to ensure the provider met national standards. The provider followed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical and Care Excellent and the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee.

  • There was evidence of good multidisciplinary team working between volunteers of the service and with other agencies and organisations.

  • Staff had the correct competencies for their roles.

  • We observed compassionate and respectful care. The provider actively sought feedback from patients and those close to them to monitor and improve the service.

  • There was a comprehensive risk register which reflected the risks we found on inspection.

  • There was a clear governance structure and leaders were visible and approachable.

  • Volunteers were proud to work for the service and understood the vision and values.

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

  • Ambient room temperatures were not recorded in all areas where medicines were stored. This meant that the service would not know if the temperature had exceeded the maximum or minimum recommended by the manufacturer for the medication to be effective.

  • There were no formal meetings and limited appraisals of volunteer dispatchers.

  • Calls were not handled in line with the provider’s policy in five out of the ten calls we listened to.

Amanda Stanford

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

Inspection areas

Safe

Updated 11 May 2018

Effective

Updated 11 May 2018

Caring

Updated 11 May 2018

Responsive

Updated 11 May 2018

Well-led

Updated 11 May 2018

Checks on specific services

Emergency and urgent care

Updated 11 May 2018

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • All reported incidents were documented and investigated. We were assured that volunteers understood what constituted an incident and that learning was shared.

  • Vehicles were properly maintained, equipped and clean. All were appropriate for use.

  • Safeguarding training was delivered regularly and most volunteers demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding.

  • Call handling and response times were consistently within the provider’s targets.

  • Clinical protocols were used to ensure the provider met national standards. The provider followed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical and Care Excellent and the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee.

  • There was evidence of good multidisciplinary team working between volunteers of the service and with other agencies and organisations.

  • Staff had the correct competencies for their roles.

  • We observed compassionate and respectful care. The provider actively sought feedback from patients and those close to them to monitor and improve the service.

  • There was a comprehensive risk register which reflected the risks we found on inspection.

  • There was a clear governance structure and leaders were visible and approachable.

  • Volunteers were proud to work for the service and understood the vision and values.

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

  • Ambient room temperatures were not recorded in all areas where medicines were stored. This meant that the service would not know if the temperature had exceeded the maximum or minimum recommended by the manufacturer for the medication to be effective.

  • There were no formal meetings and limited appraisals of volunteer dispatchers.

  • Calls were not handled in line with the provider’s policy in five out of the ten calls we listened to.