Spark Medical North West

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The service demonstrated strong leadership, a positive and inclusive culture, and a clear commitment to delivering high-quality, patient-centred care. Staff felt valued and supported, with effective communication, good teamwork, and opportunities to contribute to service improvements.

Governance arrangements were established, with clear oversight of incidents, risks, complaints, and organisational performance. Leaders engaged well with staff and external stakeholders and showed a commitment to continuous improvement.

However, audit programmes had not commenced, appraisal and supervision records were not fully up to date, and the Freedom to Speak Up process required further development. In addition, errors identified within several policies indicated weaknesses in quality assurance processes.

This is the first assessment for this service under the new provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

We scored the service as 3. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of patient and their communities.

The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action. Staff were focused on the needs of patients receiving care and delivering a high quality of service.

The service had an open culture where patients, their families and carers as well as staff could raise concerns without fear.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued and commented how recent changes promoted this. Staff reported the leadership culture to be inclusive and spoke about feeling valued and respected. Relationships between staff were positive, with strong teamwork and good working relationships.

Team and individual staff achievement, and success was recognised and celebrated for example, there was an application use called ‘High-Five’, where colleague could send positive messages of thanks to each other.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Governance, quality, safety, and compliance were overseen through a defined leadership structure. A governance team held overall responsibility for governance arrangements, including the oversight of incidents, investigations, audits, complaints, risk management, external reporting, and policy compliance.

The governance team reported to the Executive Leadership Team and provided regular reports on clinical and non-clinical incidents, serious events, complaints, safeguarding, audit outcomes, compliance trends, patient feedback, and organisational risks. Heads of Department were responsible for reporting incidents and leading investigations within their respective areas, supported by the governance team. Additional oversight was provided by the senior leadership team which consisted of a Medical Director, Clinical Leads, Heads of Service, Compliance Coordinator, and Lead Paramedic.

Governance performance, risks, and improvement actions were reviewed through Governance and Senior Leadership Team meetings, supporting organisational accountability, shared learning, and continuous improvement.

The registered manager and leaders had a range of experience, skills and abilities to run the service, and they understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced.

Leaders were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Spark UK Medical operated an open-door policy; colleagues could approach and speak to any of the management team while at work.

Leaders had taken incidents seriously and knew how to deal with concerns when raised which promoted a positive culture in the service.

Staff were invited to team meetings and could directly access the registered manager to ask questions or make suggestions. A ‘You said, we did’ system had been in place – the team had been able to offer suggestions to the company, and where possible, changes had been implemented. Recent examples had included a review of staff uniform, a welfare facilities review, and the extension of shift times.

Spark UK Medical, re-registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in March 2026, had not yet completed a staff survey. Engagement with teams was ongoing, and the company ensured consistent communication with staff both in the lead-up to and following registration with the CQC. Since March 2026, Spark UK Medical had actively engaged with teams and had introduced details of a new Employee Assistance Programme.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard, but we were not assured processes were embedded under new management.

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty and transparency. Staff were encouraged raise concerns and offer ideas. Leaders told us that if concerns were raised, they would be investigated sensitively and confidentially.

A review of the available information found that no concerns had been raised through the Freedom to Speak Up process since the change in provider. Due to the service re-registration and the absence of reporting arrangements at the time of assessment, there was no risk register or management report available to provide analysis of concerns, trends over time, or associated action plans. As a result, the Freedom to Speak Up process required further embedding within the service to support effective reporting, oversight, and learning.

Patients, their families and carers were provided with information to explain how they could raise a concern and how this would be investigated. Senior staff were encouraged to respond to immediate concerns or complaints with a view to resolution. There were policies to support the complaints process.

We scored the service as 3. The service valued diversity in their workforce. Staff work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for everyone.

Leaders acted to improve where there were any negative experiences for staff with protected equality characteristics. Leaders took steps to remove bias from practices to ensure equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce within their place of work, and throughout their employment.

The service acted to prevent and address bullying and harassment at all levels and for all staff, with a clear focus on those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those from excluded and marginalised groups.

Staff with disabilities were offered reasonable adjustments to support them to carry out their roles well. In addition, the service maintained accredited “Disability Confident” status and promoted this on all advertising material. This ensured that all applicants with disabilities who met the essential criteria for the post were guaranteed an interview.

We scored the service as 2. There was a framework in place with clear oversight, defined responsibilities, and business continuity arrangements. Staff were supported through engagement. Information governance arrangements were robust and secure. However, weaknesses were identified in policy management and in newly introduced processes.

Spark UK Medical had an established governance structure in place. The governance team maintained oversight of all incidents, accidents, and investigations and was responsible for both internal and external reporting requirements. They reviewed and managed audit activity across the organisation, ensuring actions were appropriately delegated and monitored, while working closely with Heads of Department to provide governance support. Heads of Department were responsible for reporting incidents to the Governance Team and leading investigations where appropriate.

The governance team liaised with external agencies as required, including in relation to incidents and complaints, and provided monthly reports to the Executive Leadership Team. These reports included updates on incidents, serious events, complaints, risk register activity, audit outcomes, safeguarding trends, infection prevention and control (IPC), personal protective equipment (PPE) compliance, patient feedback, and vehicle deep-cleaning programmes. Key performance indicators (KPIs) across contracts were monitored and learning and key messages were shared across the organisation.

Senior leadership meetings focused on aligning strategic priorities across departments while addressing governance matters, compliance requirements, workforce development, and operational improvements. Discussions included updates on CQC compliance, training programme enhancements, staff engagement initiatives, and fleet management strategies.

Senior managers attended daily team briefings with Spark UK Medical crews, supporting team leaders and maintaining a visible leadership presence. This enabled direct engagement with staff and promoted open communication across the organisation.

Staff at all levels demonstrated a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Job descriptions were in place and clearly outlined expectations and accountabilities.

Risks were identified, recorded, and monitored through a formal risk register, providing oversight of mitigation measures and supporting timely resolution where required.

Spark UK Medical utilised an electronic audit management system to create, schedule, and record audits. Departments could develop bespoke audit tools, which were uploaded and managed by the governance team. The system enabled both scheduled and ad hoc audits and provided real-time access through mobile devices, allowing managers and team leaders to complete audits efficiently. Functionality within the system also enabled photographic evidence to be captured and uploaded where appropriate. Information systems were integrated and secure, and required data and notifications were submitted to external organisations in a timely manner.

However, not all governance data was available to effectively monitor performance, inform decision-making, or drive improvement. For example, audit programmes had not yet commenced, and appraisal and supervision records were not fully up to date.

We saw plans for audit activity to be reported monthly through the Governance Report, enabling trends and recurring themes to be analysed and appropriate actions identified. Audit outcomes were intended to be shared with staff through noticeboards alongside patient feedback, with updates provided on a monthly basis. Following the recent change of provider, a new audit programme had been proposed but had not yet been fully implemented. Consequently, audit compliance data and outcomes were not available for review at the time of the assessment.

The service had arrangements in place to respond to unexpected events, including a business continuity plan and major incident response procedures.

The service had not reported any data breaches, and systems used to manage information were secure. Patient-identifiable information was handled appropriately.

We reviewed a number of service-level policies and found them to be current and accessible to staff. However, several policies contained errors, including references to other organisations. This indicated insufficient oversight and quality assurance processes to ensure the accuracy and validity of governance documentation. As a result, the provider could not demonstrate adequate assurance that policies had been appropriately reviewed prior to implementation. This constituted a breach of good governance.

We scored the service as 3. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for patient. Staff share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and leaders within the service worked collaboratively with relevant external stakeholders and partner agencies to enhance the care and treatment provided to patients. This included developing and maintaining effective working relationships with local NHS hospital trusts, NHS ambulance trusts, and Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to support coordinated care, information sharing, and improved patient outcomes.

The registered manager met with external stakeholders and regional networks to understand the needs of the community and the provider ambitions.

Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service implemented an Electronic Patient Record (EPR) system and was the first independent provider to do so.

Staff had access to GP Connect and NHS Ambulance Trust information through the EPR system, supporting information sharing and care coordination.

Patient records were maintained electronically, improving access to information required for care delivery.

The service introduced a staff recognition application, ‘High-Five’, which enabled colleagues to acknowledge individual and team contributions.

A wellbeing support initiative was promoted to staff, encouraging those affected by a difficult job or personal concerns to seek support by texting “I need to talk to someone” to a dedicated number. The service provides a response within 24 hours, with access to more urgent support through an on-call contact if required. The campaign reinforced the availability of confidential wellbeing support and encouraged staff to seek help when needed.