Archived: Ambulance HQ

During the visit we spoke with staff including the chief executive officer, the director of human resources and development, a supervisor and four operational staff. We also observed the maintenance of the vehicles and reviewed documentation.

From the records we reviewed and from what staff told us there were suitable arrangements in place to protect patients and others who may be at risk from the use of unsafe equipment.

There were effective recruitment procedures in place which ensured staff were employed with the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience necessary for them to carry out their role.

Staff had received appropriate professional development and training to ensure they could meet the needs of the people who used the service.

We found that recruitment and selection processes were now robust and the provider was following its own policy with regard to recruiting both qualified and unqualified staff.

There were comprehensive quality assurance systems in place for most areas and these had been greatly improved and used more appropriately since our last visit. The complaints system in place was now being co-ordinated effectively. Responses to complaints were seen to be appropriate. The accident reporting system had been further improved.

We found that recruitment and selection processes were not robust and the provider was not following its own policy with regard to recruiting both qualified and unqualified staff. The induction process being used was comprehensive and included appropriate areas of training.

Training programmes in place for staff were robust and completed fully. There was no formal supervision but staff were performance monitored and able to speak informally to managers when required. Staff reported feeling well supported by managers.

There were comprehensive quality assurance systems in place for some areas but this was lacking in others. This had resulted in management failing to identify issues. There was a complaints system in place but this was not co-ordinated effectively. Responses to complaints were seen to be appropriate.

Staff we spoke with reported they had no issues with highlighting faults, replacing equipment, or inappropriate use of any equipment within the vehicles. All the vehicles we viewed were in a good state of repair and were appropriately maintained. The equipment used was appropriate and functioning as expected. Because of the nature of the organisation's work we were not able to talk with anyone who used the service during our inspection.

Because of the nature of the organisations work, we were not able to talk with anyone who used the service during our inspection. As all the operational staff were off site working at the time of our inspection we were unable to speak with any of those staff. We spoke with several members of management and staff working within the control room. We were also unable to speak with anyone from the organisations that worked with this provider as they were not able to contact them during our inspection or shortly afterwards.

We saw during our inspection that the service was well organised, and had policies and procedures in place to ensure that there was a high quality of care offered when providing the service. The training programme was extensive, and regularly refreshed and updated.

The type of services offered meant that paperwork regarding people who used the service was not retained, or was submitted with patients at their destinations. However we were able to look at the templates used and saw examples of how the forms were completed for people who used the service on the day of our inspection. This showed that consent, dignity and the care and welfare of people was considered within the delivery of the service.