The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Ambulance Station

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

4 Robey Close, Linby, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG15 8AA 0333 001 2401

Provided and run by:
Central Medical Services, East Midlands

All Inspections

During an assessment of Emergency and urgent care

We carried out this assessment on 11 February 2025. The assessment was undertaken due to the length of time since the previous inspection of the service which had been carried out using our previous inspection methodology. At this assessment we assessed all quality statements in all key questions under our Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and this has resulted in revised ratings. The findings were as follows:

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks well. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. 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. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Effective:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

Caring:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. They treated people as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

Responsive:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Well-led:

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

We carried out this assessment on 11 February 2025. The assessment was undertaken due to the length of time since the previous inspection of the service which had been carried out using our previous inspection methodology. At this assessment we assessed all quality statements in all key questions under our Single Assessment Framework (SAF) and this has resulted in revised ratings. The findings were as follows:

Safe:

The service had a good learning culture and people could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. People were protected and kept safe. Staff understood and managed risks well. The facilities and equipment met the needs of people, were clean and well-maintained and any risks mitigated. 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. Staff managed medicines well and involved people in planning any changes.

Effective:

People were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of people’s communication, personal and health needs. Care was based on latest evidence and good practice. People always had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and smooth transitions when moving services. They monitored people’s health to support healthy living. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent. Staff involved those important to people took decisions in people’s best interests where they did not have capacity.

Caring:

People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. They treated people as individuals and supported their preferences. People had choice in their care and were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Staff responded to people in a timely way. The service supported staff wellbeing.

Responsive:

People were involved in decisions about their care. The service provided information people could understand. People knew how to give feedback and were confident the service took it seriously and acted on it. The service was easy to access and worked to eliminate discrimination. People received fair and equal care and treatment. The service worked to reduce health and care inequalities through training and feedback. People were involved in planning their care and understood options around choosing to withdraw or not receive care.

Well-led:

Leaders and staff had a shared vision and culture based on listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. People with protected characteristics felt supported. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Managers worked with the local community to deliver the best possible care and were receptive to new ideas. There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff given time and resources to try new ideas.

18 and 26 February 2020

During a routine inspection

Ambulance Station is operated by Central Medical Services, East Midlands. The service provides emergency and urgent care and a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of our inspection to ensure everyone we needed to speak with was available. We carried out the inspection on 18 and 26 February 2020.

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.

The services provided by this service patient transport services with emergency and urgent care transport from events and carrying out 999 calls for NHS trusts. On this inspection we inspected both core services.

Where our findings on patient transport services – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but refer the reader to the patient transport core service.

We rated it as Good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.

  • Staff provided good care and treatment and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.

  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However, we found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The service did not comply with Duty of Candour regulation.
  • Staff completion of information governance and prevent training was below 70%.
  • The safeguarding adults policy did not reference modern slavery.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must and should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with one requirement notice that affected emergency and urgent care. Details are at the end of the report. Although a breach of a regulation normally limits the rating of that key question to requires improvement as this breach relates to one incident, we have over ruled that principle and the rating for safe for emergency and urgent care has therefore been rated as good.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Acute Hospitals South), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

18 July & 24th July 2016

During a routine inspection

Ambulance Station is operated by Central Medical Services. The service provides emergency and urgent care and patient transport services. The service has a service level agreement with a local NHS ambulance service and other NHS organisations. It also provides emergency care provision at public events, which is not inspected by Care Quality Commission (CQC) because this falls outside of the scope of CQC registration.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 18 July 2017, along with an unannounced visit to the service on 24 July 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.

The main service provided by this service which we regulate is patient transport services.

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 the following areas of good practice:

  • There were no never events or serious incidents reported in this service between April 2016 and April 2017.
  • Staff we spoke with had a good understanding about duty of candour.
  • Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
  • Infection prevention and control processes were in place and equipment had been checked in line with the service policy.
  • Staffing levels were planned, implemented and reviewed to ensure patients received safe care and treatment at all times.
  • Emergency equipment was readily available, maintained and serviced.
  • Staff assessed and responded appropriately to potential risks to patients.
  • Staff received training to provide them with the skills and knowledge required for their role.
  • Medical record documentation was completed in line with national standards.
  • Policies for care and treatment were in date, accessible and reflected relevant research and guidance.
  • Patients received safe treatment and care was provided to a good standard.
  • Patients told us that staff treated them with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.
  • Staff responded compassionately when patients needed help and supported patients emotionally. This was reflected in feedback from patients.
  • Patients were able to provide feedback which was unanimously positive about the care and treatment they had received.
  • Patients were involved and encouraged in making decisions about their care.
  • Services were planned and delivered in a way which met the needs of the local population.
  • Staff we spoke with were positive about local leadership.
  • Staff told us that managers were both visible and accessible and that they would have no concerns in raising any issues directly with them should the need occur.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • At the time of inspection the service did not have an effective governance system in place to monitor activity and improvements.
  • The fire extinguishers we reviewed were not all in date.
  • The service did not have the correct warning signs displayed on the doors where cleaning chemicals were stored.
  • A patient group directive (PGD) had not been signed off before a medication was stored on the vehicles for administration.

Heidi Smoult

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