Archived: Event City

Updated 10 April 2020

A&E Life Support Ltd has been registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since June 2016. The provider’s registered address is 15 Forsythia Drive, Clayton-le-Woods, Chorley, Lancashire, PR6 7DF.

As part of its registration, A&E Life Support Ltd has one registered location; Event City, Barton Dock Road, Urmston, Manchester, Lancashire, M41 7TB.

Since February 2019, the service has been operating from another location; Units 5/6, Point 65 Business Centre, Greenbank Way, Blackburn, Lancashire, BB1 3EA. This location has not yet been registered by the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The service has not had a registered manager in place since 16 February 2018 when the previous registered manager cancelled their registration. An application for a new registered manager has been submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in May 2019 but this was refused in October 2019. The service is in the process of submitting a new registered manager application with the CQC.

Updated 10 April 2020

A&E Life Support Ltd is an independent ambulance service that mainly provides patient transport services across the North West region. This includes transport of patients detained under the Mental Health Act (1983).

The service also provides emergency services for patients that may require transport from events to a hospital. This is only a small part of overall activities.

We carried out a focussed responsive inspection at the provider’s premises in Blackburn, Lancashire on 17 January 2020.

We carried out a focussed responsive inspection because of concerns that we identified during our previous inspections of the service on 04 and 05 November 2019 as well as on 25 November 2019.

We inspected specific key lines of enquiry for safe, effective and well-led. We did not inspect caring and responsive as part of this inspection.

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 rate

We did not rate the service because this was a focussed responsive inspection. We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• The service did not provide mandatory training in key skills to all staff and did not make sure everyone completed it. Although the service had listed mandatory training modules that staff were required to complete, it was unclear how these would be delivered.

• Patients were not always protected from potential abuse because not all staff had been trained on how to recognise and report abuse. This was because the service had not completed appropriate Disclosure and Barring service checks for all staff.

• The service controlled some infection risks. The policies and procedures for infection control did not always reflect the service that was provided. We found that the infection and prevention control policy contained several inappropriate references, meaning that staff would not always have the correct information to support them to reduce the risk of infection being spread.

• We were not assured that all equipment used by the service for providing care or treatment was safe for such use. We had concerns that not all equipment was immediately available. We did not see evidence that all equipment had been serviced in line with manufacturers guidance.

• The service did not have clear processes in place to remove or minimise risks to patients. Although the service implemented guidance for staff to follow when managing the deteriorating patient following the inspection, it was still unclear how patients would be assessed to make sure that they received the most appropriate care. Additionally, policies and processes were not always in place to support staff in the use of mechanical restraint.

• We were not assured that improvements that had been made to patient records would be effective, sustained or monitored. Although the service had made improvements to patient records, we found that the service had not updated their policies and procedures regarding this or had planned to monitor compliance against the changes that had been made.

• The service did not have systems in place to make sure all staff were competent for their roles. We were informed that staff had received mental health training. However, we did not see evidence of what this training had included.

• The service had not planned to seek the consent of patients before providing care and treatment, in line with national guidance. Although the service had made amendments to patient documentation, it was unclear how staff were supported to seek and document consent before providing care and treatment.

• The service did not have a formal strategy to turn what they wanted to achieve into action. We found that the service had a vision of what they wanted to achieve but it was unclear how this would be achieved in a timely manner.

• The service did not operate effective governance processes. The service did not have processes outlining how policies and procedures would be reviewed to make sure that they were reflective of up to date best practice guidance and legislation.

• The service did not have systems to manage performance effectively. We had concerns that the process in place to manage risk would not be effective. The service had not planned to monitor the services provided so that improvements could be made when needed.

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 took urgent enforcement action against the provider and issued an urgent suspension notice because we identified significant concerns that posed a potential risk of harm to patients. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North Region), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 10 April 2020

The main activity provided by the service was patient transport services.

The service also provided emergency services for patients that required transport from events to a hospital. As this was only a small part of overall activities, this has been reported under patient transport services.

We did not rate the service because this was a focussed responsive inspection.