Meditech Global Ltd

Updated 25 April 2023

Meditech Global Ltd registered with CQC on 13 March 2012 and was last inspected, but not rated, in 2018. A remote monitoring call was undertaken in 2021. The service is registered for the transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely, and treatment of disease, disorder or injury regulated activities. The service provides pre-hospital support to 4 motorsport venues around the UK, in addition to ad-hoc support at other venues. The service assesses and manages sick and injured patients before providing medical care or conveying to hospital services where required. The service also provides medical training, but this does not fall into the scope of activities regulated by CQC. The scope of our inspection focused on activity where patients were conveyed to hospital by the service, under our independent ambulance emergency and urgent care framework. The service told us that in 2022, 17 patients were conveyed to hospital.

Updated 25 April 2023

The service has not been previously rated. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service did not always manage medicines well.
• Managers did not always assess and monitor the effectiveness of the service. The service did not measure patient outcomes against national guidance. Staff did not always receive an appraisal.
• Managers did not have oversight of all risks in the service.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, although it was not always clear how often training should be renewed. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service generally controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and kept good care records.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
• The service took account of patients’ individual needs and were open to feedback.
• Leaders generally had the skills and abilities to run the service and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

Updated 18 May 2018

We regulate this service but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate it. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

Updated 25 April 2023

The service has not been previously rated. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service did not always manage medicines well.
• Managers did not always assess and monitor the effectiveness of the service. The service did not measure patient outcomes against national guidance. Staff did not always receive an appraisal.
• Managers did not have oversight of all risks in the service.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, although it was not always clear how often training should be renewed. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service generally controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and kept good care records.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
• The service took account of patients’ individual needs and were open to feedback.
• Leaders generally had the skills and abilities to run the service and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.