You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Updated 18 May 2018

Meditech Global Ltd – Rockingham Motor Speedway is operated by Meditech Global Limited. The service has one registered location at Rockingham Motor Speedway and provides on-site first response care to users of the speedway and to spectators. The scope of this inspection was focused on the conveyance of patients from Rockingham Motor Speedway to local hospitals; the treatment of patients on site at Rockingham Motor Speedway falls outside the scope of registration and so was not considered. The service has four vehicles, which can be used for conveying patients.The medical centre is equipped with a two bed stabilisation treatment room and a one bed burns room.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 19 March 2018. Due to the nature of the service, we did not conduct an unannounced inspection.

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? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

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 do not rate

We regulate independent ambulance services but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them when they are provided as a single specialty service. 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 appropriate processes and procedures for ensuring the delivery of safe, effective, high quality care. A range of standard operating procedures existed. Importantly, staff were well-versed and knowledgeable about the content of the operating procedures.
  • The service was staffed and supported by a range of health-care professionals who were competent and knowledgeable.
  • Patients were initially assessed using national based guidance. Patient record forms were used to capture treatments provided; advice given and whether patients were conveyed to a local hospital. The vehicles used were visibly clean and well maintained.
  • Whilst there had been no incidents reported during the preceding twelve months, staff were well aware of their roles and responsibilities in regards to the reporting of, and learning from incidents.
  • There existed a flat hierarchy, which promoted a mutual respect amongst all health professionals. Individuals knew about their own professional accountabilities and responsibilities but they were also respectful of the roles of others within the team.
  • The management team promoted an open culture within the service allowing staff to be candid with one another. There was a focus on learning and service enhancement and improvement.
  • The service was responsive to the needs of its patients. The environment and service provided was fit for purpose with reasonable adjustments having been made to ensure the needs of the majority of the population could be met. There were arrangements in place with the local NHS Ambulance trust for bariatric patients to be conveyed by way of a specially adapted vehicle should the need arise.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

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

Inspection areas

Safe

Updated 18 May 2018

Effective

Updated 18 May 2018

Caring

Updated 18 May 2018

Responsive

Updated 18 May 2018

Well-led

Updated 18 May 2018

Checks on specific services

Patient transport services

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.