• Ambulance service

Archived: Riviera Ambulance Service Limited

Riviera Ambulance Service Control Office, 81 Perinville Road, Torquay, Devon, TQ1 3PD (01803) 323618

Provided and run by:
Riviera Ambulance Service Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All Inspections

17 October 2017

During a routine inspection

We initially inspected Riviera Ambulance Service Limited on the 22 and 30 August 2017. During that inspection we had concerns about the safe care and treatment of service users. Following the inspection, we took enforcement action to urgently suspend both the registered manager’s and the provider’s registration for a period of six weeks from 13 September to 25 October 2017.

During the suspension period the provider and registered manager took measures to significantly improve the service. On 6 October 2017, the provider sent us an action plan outlining actions they had taken, and planned to take, to improve the areas of concern we identified. On the basis of this, we carried out a focused inspection on 17 October 2017. This was only focused on the areas of concern reported in the notice of suspension.

We do not currently have a legal duty to rate independent ambulance services.

Our key findings were as follows:

  • A significant number of improvements had been made to the service in response to the breaches identified in our notice of decision to suspend.
  • The provider and registered manager had completed a significant amount of work to ensure compliance of the service against the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 to provide a safe service to patients.
  • The registered manager demonstrated motivation and determination to improve the service. He spoke honestly about the introduction of new systems and processes being in their infancy stages, needing further development and embedding into practice.
  • A two-stage risk assessment approach had been developed to ensure the safety of the patient and staff during the journey.
  • A new recruitment procedure ensured patients were safeguarded against unsuitable staff.
  • Systems and processes were clear to ensure safeguarding concerns were reported to safeguard patients against avoidable harm and abuse.
  • A new system had been introduced to gather feedback from stakeholders who used the service, which aimed to support service improvement.
  • Procedures to monitor the safety, quality and performance of the service were being developed.

However:

  • The risk register still required further development to ensure all risks associated with the service had been accounted for and mitigated.
  • The registered manager was open and honest that his knowledge of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 still required further development and this work was ongoing.

We will continue to monitor the provider’s performance and will undertake further inspections as necessary to ensure the improvements are sustained.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals 

22 August 2017 and revisited on 30 August 2017

During a routine inspection

Riviera Ambulance Service Limited provides a patient transport service specialising in NHS and private sector mental health transfers throughout the United Kingdom.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 22 August 2017 and revisited the service on 30 August 2017.

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.

Following this inspection we used our enforcement powers to urgently suspend the registration of Riviera Ambulance Service Limited, and the Registered Manager, to protect the safety and welfare of patients. The suspension started on Wednesday 13 September and continued until Wednesday 25 October.

We re-inspected the service on 17 October 2017, following a request from the provider and receipt of an action plan identifying changes which had been made to the service. The provider was able to demonstrate a significant number of changes and improvements had been made to the service in response to the breaches identified in the suspension notice served on 13 September 2017. In light of this, we lifted the both the Registered Manager's and the provider's suspension of registration from Wednesday 25 October. A report of our findings at this re-inspection will follow in due course.

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 many areas of serious concern:

  • The registered manager was unfamiliar with the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.
  • Incident reporting was not embedded, incidents were not adequately investigated and relevant learning was not shared with staff.
  • A thorough assessment of the patient’s need was not taken and recorded.
  • Information provided to the service was not acted on, for example information from the referring units with regards to patient risk.
  • There were no policies or procedures available for staff to follow with regards to capacity and consent.
  • The registered manager was not working in accordance with the code of practice for health and adult social care and the prevention and control of infection, and related guidance 2015.
  • There was no evidence infection, prevention and control risks associated with patients were collected during the initial booking stage or during the verbal handover from the unit to the crew.
  • There was a lack of detail around risk management in relation to identification of risks and strategies to manage or mitigate them.
  • The registered manager and the staff had not received the correct level and frequency of safeguarding training, to ensure staff were aware of their responsibilities to act upon any allegations of abuse. There was no system or process to ensure allegations of abuse were raised with the appropriate organisation to safeguard patients.
  • There was no assessment of patients’ capacity in line with the Mental Health Act 1983.
  • Neither the crew nor the registered manager received training on the Code of Practice: Mental Health Act 1983 despite the service specialising in the transport of mental health patients.
  • The registered manager was not up to date with relevant nationally recognised guidance appropriate to the services they provided. For example, the management and storage of oxygen was not in line with national guidance. Neither the registered manager or the staff had an understanding of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance ‘Violence and aggression: short term management in mental health, health and community settings (NG10)’.
  • There were no policies and procedures available for the crew to follow when they supported patients with medicines on transfers. Crews did not record when they supported patients with taking their medicines during a journey.
  • Staffing and recruitment procedures did not ensure required information was obtained to meet the legal requirements, including Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider had no system of appraisal to formally monitor staff. Crew members’ competence to carry out their role following their induction period or when using blue lights on the ambulance were not assessed.
  • There were no governance arrangements in place to assess and monitor the service in terms of quality, safety, performance and risk.
  • The recruitment procedure did not safeguard patients against unsuitable staff, and there was no process to review the fitness of the employees.
  • Professional body registers were not checked to ensure appropriate staff had a current registration.
  • The registered manager did not have an understanding of the duty of candour regulation and there were no policies or procedures with regards to this within the service.
  • The provider was not monitoring the how long each crew member spent driving.
  • The provider did not have a document to identify eligibility criteria for determining the types of patients suitable to travel with them. There was also no policy or procedure available for the management of the deteriorating patient.

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

  • Records demonstrated all vehicles were properly maintained.
  • Vehicles were designed to ensure patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 were safely transported.
  • Staff spoke about the patients they transported in a caring and insightful way.
  • We received 14 comment cards from patients which provided consistently positive comments about Riviera Ambulance Service Limited.
  • The provider had some flexible capacity to cope with the differing levels of demand for their service.
  • The crew understood the need to keep patients calm and happy throughout their journey and where possible tried to accommodate the patient’s wishes.
  • Riviera Ambulance Service Limited provided a service which was flexible to meet the need of the organisations they worked for.
  • The registered manager was responsive to ideas suggested by staff to improve the service.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (South)