You are here

UK Emergency Medical Transport Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 20 August 2019

During a routine inspection

UK Emergency Medical Transport Ltd is operated by UK Emergency Medical Transport (UK EMT) Ltd. The service provides a patient transport service specialising in the transfer of mental health patients, including those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short-announced inspection on 20 August 2019.

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?

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this service was mental health transport.

We rated it as Good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • All staff had completed training that was required to undertake their roles safely. In addition, records indicated that staff were up to date with all mandatory training.
  • Staff were trained in safeguarding adults and safeguarding children level two and level three. This was in line with the standards set out by the intercollegiate document, safeguarding children and young people: roles and competencies for healthcare staff (2019).
  • Staff demonstrated an awareness of the need to protect the privacy and dignity of patients.
  • The service monitored the maintenance and cleaning of ambulances and other equipment.
  • The service had ambulances available to them that were suitable for patients requiring bariatric equipment.
  • There was clear, visible leadership and structure. Processes were in place for recruitment and training.

However, we found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • At the time of inspection, the service had not ensured that equipment stored on the privately-owned ambulance was in line with safety and manufacturers guidance. For example, the automated defibrillator had not been calibrated or serviced. Post-inspection we were provided evidence that all the equipment had been serviced and calibrated
  • At the time of inspection, the service had a risk management policy in place, however, there was no risk register and therefore they could not assure us that they had oversight of their risks. Post-inspection we were provided with a risk register which identified individual risks with actions to mitigate them.
  • The service had several policies that were not personal to the service and were not version controlled.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with two requirement notices. Details are at the end of the report.

Name of signatory

Anne Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals