F.A.S.T. Ambulance Services

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

We looked for evidence that safety was a priority for everyone and leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. We checked that people were looked after in safe environments and protected from avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination. We also checked people’s liberty was protected where this was in their best interests and in line with legislation.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and mostly well-maintained. Managers and staff assessed risks and acted to reduce them. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience. Managers made sure staff received training and regular appraisals to maintain high-quality care. Managers had completed training suitable for their roles in supporting staff.

This service scored 75 (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 Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

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

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people's needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Booking forms for planned journeys were completed and detailed patients' individual needs. These were assessed by staff and suitable transport was arranged if it was available. If the service could not meet individual needs this was discussed to assess what adjustments could be made to provide the journey safely. Managers gave examples of adjustments they had made to maintain patient safety. For example, equipment to hold patients who were in higher than usual weight brackets or who had challenging behaviour. However, there were occasional times when staff did not receive all of the information about patient's needs. This resulted in a delay while additional equipment was made available. An example was of staff not receiving information that the patient required oxygen for the journey. Staff returned to their vehicle to collect portable cylinders for patient use.

Staff were clear about their role when returning patients to their home. They assessed any risks in the home and raised concerns with managers at the time.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Staff made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Consumables and stock equipment was stored safely and was within it use by date. Secure electronic systems reminded managers when equipment needed maintenance or replacing due to being near its expiry date. Additionally, staff checked expiry dates and reported them to managers. Vehicles were taken off the road when regular maintenance or repair of defects was due. Staff reported any defects to managers but felt repairs were not always acted on promptly and staff did not always receive feedback of how defects were being managed.

Staff used equipment safely and we saw wheelchairs and trolleys being secured to vehicles during journeys. Some staff felt equipment needed to be updated. For example, flaking paint on some trolleys. Electrical equipment was safety tested each year.

Staff followed policies to maintain a clean environment and managers monitored effectiveness of cleaning processes.

Waste items were removed from vehicles and stored safely until the contracted waste company collected it for final disposal.

Any medicines carried by staff were in line with recommended guidelines and were regularly checked for expiry dates and replaced when needed.

Oxygen cylinders were stored securely away from public access and in line with national guidelines.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. Staff detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff followed the service's policy when maintaining hygiene between patient journeys which protected patients from infection risks. Cleaning equipment was colour coded and easily recognised by staff for its cleaning purpose. There was easily available hand cleansing gel and facility for hand washing when needed. Cleaning materials suitable for the equipment and vehicles was readily available. There was a documented process of cleaning vehicles at each end of every day. Staff reported any issues to managers who fed this back to staff for their knowledge and action. Vehicles underwent deep cleaning at set intervals and between these times if an infection control risk had been identified. However, some staff had reported issues and had not seen actions taken. For example, a tear in the driver's seat covering had not been repaired which could present an infection risk if not rectified.

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