The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Archived: North West Ambulance Base

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Willow House, Oaklands Office Park, Hooton Road, Hooton, Ellesmere Port, CH66 7NZ 0330 223 5138

Provided and run by:
Ambulance Training & Staffing Solutions Ltd

Important: This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

All Inspections

27 August 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

North West Ambulance Base is operated by Ambulance Training and Staffing Solutions Ltd. The service provides emergency and urgent care and patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our focused inspection methodology. We carried out the short-announced inspection on 27 August 2020. We focused on infection prevention and control procedures.

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 patient transport services. The service also provided emergency and urgent care services, mainly for a local NHS ambulance trust. Where our findings on patient transport services – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the patient transport services core service.

We did not rate the service as this was a focussed responsive inspection.

  • The service did not always control infection risk well. Staff did not always use equipment and control measures to protect patients, themselves and others from infection. They did not always keep the premises visibly clean.
  • The storage of equipment did not always keep people safe.
  • The service did not always manage clinical waste well.
  • The design, maintenance and use of facilities, premises and vehicles did not always keep people safe
  • There was no evidence that important equipment was highlighted on vehicle inventories, such as filtering facepiece (FFP3) masks or other equipment that would be used for aerosol generating procedures (AGPs).
  • Leaders did not operate effective governance processes, throughout the service. Staff at all levels were not always clear about their roles and accountabilities.
  • Leaders and teams did not always use systems to manage performance effectively. They did not always identify and escalate risks and issues or identify actions to reduce their impact.

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

  • They had plans to cope with unexpected events.
  • Equipment and vehicles in use during the inspection were visibly clean.

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 notice(s) that affected patient transport services and emergency and urgent care. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals North, on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals​

19 February to 9 March 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Manone Medical Ltd. is operated by Ambulance Training and Staffing Solutions Ltd. The service provides emergency and urgent care as well as a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our focussed responsive inspection methodology. We carried out the inspection on 19 February, 3 March and 9 March 2020.

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.

We did not rate the service as this was a focussed responsive inspection.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The service had not documented the reasons why patients had lacked mental capacity when needed, in line with national guidance.

  • The service had not always documented that vehicle defects had been rectified. This meant that there was an increased risk that ambulances had not been maintained in a way that would keep people safe.

  • We had concerns that patients’ pain had not always been managed appropriately.

  • Leaders had not always operated effective governance processes and were not always clear about their responsibilities.

  • Although evidence was provided following the inspection period which indicated that leaders had met to discuss the performance of the service, key information had not been discussed, there was limited evidence of discussions and there was no documented evidence of what actions had been identified to make improvements to the service when needed.

  • Leaders had not always used systems to manage performance effectively.

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it. The service made sure that staff were competent for their roles.

  • The service had a clear process to minimise risks to patients.

  • The service had enough staff with the right qualifications and skills to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

  • The service had operated an effective system to protect patients from potential abuse on most occasions.

  • The service had a leadership team who were able to support staff both clinically and operationally.

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 that affected urgent and emergency care. Details are at the end of the report.

Ann Ford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals, on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals