Ambicorp Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that safety was a priority for everyone, and leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. We checked that people were safe and protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, neglect, abuse and discrimination. We also checked people's liberty was protected where this was in their best interests and in line with legislation.

At our last assessment we did not rate this service as that was not part of the methodology at the time. At this assessment the rating is good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Score: 3

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety, investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The service had a clear process for investigating incidents. As the service carried out work for multiple different providers, incidents came through from different sources and in different formats. All incidents and complaints were filtered through the same responsible person and then investigated.

Staff were aware of how to report an incident. During the assessment staff explained how to raise an incident and told us they would get feedback from management. The service had an incident reporting policy in place.

The service thoroughly investigated any incidents and complaints. As part of the assessment process, we reviewed the services complaints and incidents files that were provided by the service. Where appropriate, the service took statements from staff and liaised with other services involved.

The service had examples of learning from incidents within the files and examples were provided by staff. The main examples were in relation to refresher training or additional learning for staff members involved.

Score: 3

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. Staff made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Most of the patient activity undertaken by the service was to provide patient transport services for other healthcare providers. The service had regular engagement with healthcare partners where any issues could be discussed.

Leaders were assured appropriate action was taken by staff as patient transfer documentation for all journeys were sent to the office for leaders to review.

During the assessment we observed that staff had a good understanding of the needs of a patient who was booked for transport. Staff challenged a discharge appropriately with a hospital, which contributed to avoiding a potentially unsafe discharge.

Score: 3

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people's lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The service had the appropriate policies and procedures in place for reporting and processing safeguarding. Staff we spoke with during the assessment all understood the process and similarly to incidents, all were reported through the office. The service had an identified safeguarding lead. Staff were able to provide examples of dealing with safeguarding incidents, both witnessed and reported.

Staff were appropriately trained at the service. All staff had safeguarding training up to level 2 for safeguarding adults and children. At the time of the assessment the service did not have a level 4 trained staff member, however they were already aware of this, and the safeguarding lead was booked on the course. As part of the post assessment information from the service, we were provided with confirmation that the general manager had completed this course, and the registered manager was booked onto the course.

Score: 3

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People were encouraged to have a voice, where possible people could make decisions about their care. If a patient was being transported who had capacity to consent to decisions about their care, they had the right to refuse the transfer, staff respected this and ensured that people were aware as part of the process. If requested, staff would put people on a stretcher.

Score: 3

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Staff made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Staff had access to appropriate equipment, and it was managed effectively. The service had an equipment logging system, and each item received a service when required, usually twice yearly. The service worked with a company that carried out both routine maintenance and breakdown repair.

The service managed its vehicles effectively. Vehicles reviewed on the assessment were well stocked with equipment and staff carried out appropriate checks. Staff told us all vehicle issues were reported and logged along with broken and faulty equipment.

However, we found an out-of-date test sticker, a missing emergency hammer, a tear on a stretcher and cracked bumper on a vehicle. These were all escalated to the person in charge at the time of the assessment and evidence was provided that these issues were resolved by the service following the assessment.

It was observed on the assessment that some staff used navigation apps on their phones without appropriate phone holders. Staff had access to navigation devices they were supposed to use. Immediately following the assessment staff were reminded that they should use the correctly secured navigation devices and appropriate phone holders were ordered.

The service did not have a clinical waste bin on site, however, staff had clinical waste bags on ambulances. Staff disposed of clinical waste in clinical waste bins at hospital sites.

Score: 3

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people's individual needs.

The service always had people working in a group of two for patient transport or three for secure patient transport. When staff occasionally worked alone on non-patient focussed work, the service had a lone working policy and process. Staff told us they felt staffing was safe.

The service had appropriate staff recruitment processes in place. Whilst on assessment we reviewed staff files and found they contained appropriate checks for identity, references, driving licenses, and disclosure and barring service checks.

Staff were appropriately trained for their role. The service had a comprehensive mandatory training schedule. The average completion rate for all the modules was 90%, including some new starters who had not yet fully completed their initial mandatory training. The service provided additional training and development for staff, allowing them to develop. This included opportunities for training in secure transport.

The service had frameworks in place for new staff. Supervision was available if required. Staff had yearly appraisals whether they were full time, part time or occasional bank staff.

Score: 3

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection well. Staff detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

Whilst on the assessment the location was clean, tidy and well organised. No out-of-date stock was identified. The service had cleaning equipment on site.

Whilst on assessment we observed staff clean equipment and wash their hands before and between each patient.

The vehicles reviewed whilst on the assessment were clean, tidy and well maintained. The service had records and procedures for deep cleaning and general cleaning of vehicles. All vehicles had a spill kit that was checked regularly.

During our assessment we observed good staff practice in relation to infection, prevention and control. Staff completed infection control training as part of the mandatory training programme and had good knowledge of infection, prevention and control processes.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and we observed staff used it appropriately during the assessment. The crew room had all the required PPE available.

Score: 3

The service did not have any medicines on site or on ambulances. There were no lock boxes for medicines on ambulances. Staff did not administer any medicines.

If a patient being transported had any medicines, they needed to be in the people’s possession and the patient needed to have capacity to decide to carry their medicines.

Oxygen cylinders were stored and managed safely and separated appropriately.