Harley Street Ambulance Service

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. The service was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to regulation 18 Staffing and regulation 19 Fit and proper persons employed. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of these regulations. At this assessment the rating remained the same as we did not assess all quality statements as part of this inspection.

We looked at the quality statements associated with the warning notice and not the whole key question. We assessed 1 quality statement which scored 3, good. This means we looked for evidence staff were trained and competent for the roles they carried out.

This service scored 53 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who received support and supervision to provide safe care that met people’s needs.

The service employed 8 substantive members of staff and 4 bank staff as ambulance crew covering shifts between 7am to 8.30pm. The service accepted bookings according to their staff levels, each ambulance was crewed by 2 members of staff. The service did not use agency staff, and used bank staff if needed, all staff were employed by the service.

All staff received and were up to date with mandatory training. We reviewed the training log which listed all mandatory training required. The operation’s manager tracked staff progress and flagged when training was about to expire prompting staff what training course was due. We reviewed staff files and found they included certificates for mandatory training and external training they had completed. Electronic certificates were accessible for online training. We reviewed the training schedule and found all staff were up to date with their training at the time of this inspection. Training courses were a mixture of face to face and online, all ambulance crews completed the same training. Staff told us they had time to complete their training and were encouraged to do so.

All staff held a minimum of First Response Emergency Care (FREC) Level 3 qualification, a nationally recognised qualification, which equipped staff with the knowledge and skills to manage emergency situations in a pre-hospital setting. The service kept a record of employee’s qualifications and the expiry dates on a central data base. At the time of the inspection a staff member was upskilling to FREC level 4 and their level 3 certificate had expired. The service was aware of this and noted this in the staff member’s file allowing them to monitor the employee’s progress and restrict their practice in the service in line with the service’s training and development policy.

The service carried out background checks on all their staff to ensure only suitable individuals were employed. The 5 staff files we reviewed all included an employment history, verification of past work, references, qualifications and criminal record checks. The service kept a log of staff members Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks including their expiry date. We reviewed the log and found all DBS checks were in date. Staff were required to submit a new DBS check every 3 years in line with the service’s recruitment and selection policy.

Staff told us they had regular supervision meetings with management to discuss their development and found leaders to be supportive. Annual appraisals were held and staff told us they found these useful. Records showed all members of staff were up to date with their quarterly supervision meetings and annual appraisals meaning staff and leaders could discuss performance, areas of improvement and areas of strength. Staff knew what action they needed to take to improve and what they had done well.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.