The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

HATS @ Weir Road

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

44 Weir Road, London, SW19 8UG (020) 7231 9419

Provided and run by:
HATS Group Ltd

All Inspections

21st January - 1st May 2020

During a routine inspection

HATS @ Weir Road is operated by HATS Group Limited. The service provides patient transport services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the unannounced visit to the service on the 21st January 2020, the 29th January 2020, the 6th February 2020, and concluded the inspection on the 1st May 2020 after following up on whistle-blower concerns raised during the inspection period.

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 had inspected this service before but did not have the legal duty to rate it previously. 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 and assessed patients’ food and drink requirements. The service met agreed response times. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients.

  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. 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 and were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

    Dr Nigel Acheson

    Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (London & South)

14 to 15 March 2017

During a routine inspection

We inspected this service on 14 and 15 March 2017as part of our programme of comprehensive inspections.

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 service 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 services need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Patient transport services (PTS) were managed in line with current standards and legislation, and staff had the skills to carry out their roles effectively, and in line with good practice.
  • There were systems to communicate learning from incidents and complaint outcomes
  • The service met the needs of patients it transported as was clear from their feedback.
  • We saw staff treating and caring for patients with compassion, dignity and respect.
  • Staff adhered to good infection prevention and control practice.
  • Vehicles were maintained to a high level of cleanliness and servicing was seen to be effective, timely and accurately documented.
  • PTS services were mainly pre booked to ensure sufficient resource could be allocated to each job, taking account of individual patient’s needs.
  • Patient booking forms were stored appropriately and audited to ensure good completion by staff.
  • At booking stage, the dispatchers collected all relevant information on patient needs:  mobility, the type of vehicle needed and any equipment required, as well as whether a nurse or carer would accompany the patient.
  • The service was performing well against its contractual key performance indicators (KPIs).
  • There was close and effective coordination with the hospitals that HATS worked for. The attendance of HATS staff at bed meetings was excellent practice.
  • Staff feedback was collected and used in service development, and it was clear from staff comments that that the service valued their staff.

However, we also found some issues that the service needed to improve, all of which were corrected very soon after inspection:

  • Safeguarding training had a bias towards child protection. Following the inspection the service revised their training to cover safeguarding vulnerable adults in greater depth and arranged for all staff to have this training by the end of April 2017.
  • The vehicle daily checks did not include checking tyre inflation pressure. The service added tyre pressure monitoring caps to all their vehicles shortly after the inspection and had added this check to the daily vehicle checklist.
  • We saw three small oxygen cylinders stored, unsecured, within the office area of at St Pancras hospital. The service responded promptly and provided secured storage for these within days of the inspection.

Professor Edward Baker

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

17 December 2012 and 17 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the branch headquarters and one of the hospital sites where the service is contracted to provide patient transport services (PTS). We spoke with four staff, a site manager, a controller, the registered manager and four people who used the service.

The four patients we met at the hospital PTS site were pleased with the transport services they used. One person commented, 'They are organised, the drivers are very nice and we have a good laugh.' Another person described the drivers as 'lovely' and that all other staff were 'very nice.' On the day of our inspection, all four people said they had experienced some delays with their transport but this was unusual. People told us that they were always contacted prior to their journey to confirm arrangements and to check if there were any changes to their needs or requirements.

Information given to the ambulance crew was appropriate and sufficient, to transport patients safely.

We saw that equipment and vehicles used by the service were regularly checked and maintained for safety. Appropriate cleaning procedures ensured that the risk of infection was minimised.

Staff received regular training to keep their skills and knowledge up to date. The three ambulance staff we spoke to felt that the training was good and relevant to their work. One staff said that the company was flexible and able to accommodate requests. There were adequate systems in place to regularly monitor and assess the quality of service provided.