Head Office

The service was last inspected in 2017 and met the standards required, however we did not have the powers to rate the independent ambulance services. This is the first time we have inspected this location and applied under our new ratings. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Service leaders implemented innovative ways of addressing staffing capacity and skill mix. 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 and influenced other providers to improve medicines safety. The service used and developed systems and process to safely prescribe, administer, record, store and audit medicines.
• The service provided mandatory training to staff and made sure everyone completed it. Mandatory training covered a broad range of key skills and the service involved staff in developing the training. The service had established their own training centre which was opening in July 2022 and had already gained accreditation to provide courses for trainee associate ambulance practitioners. The service was proactive in gaining qualified trainers to undertake emergency response (blue light) training. They supported their own staff and external candidates with training courses.
• The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. It was easy for people to raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff. The service included patients in the investigation of their complaint. The service encouraged patients to raise concerns and staff were confident to report all concerns and near misses.
• Staff provided good care and treatment and gave pain relief when they needed it. The service met agreed response times. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients and supported them to make decisions about their care. Staff had access to useful 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 worked with their commissioners and partner organisations to ensure that services were tailored to meet the needs of the local population. Managers worked well with their partners and influenced changes in clinical practice across the sectors they worked in. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving care continually.
• 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.

However:

• The service could explore more innovative ways to obtain patient feedback. At present, feedback was obtained online and through paper form, through the commissioners, staff or patients email directly. We did see some positive comments. For those who do not have access to online feedback, alternative ways could be developed to gain a more diverse range of people’s voice.