Met Medical

Updated 21 June 2019

MET Medical is operated by MET Medical Ltd. The service opened in 2016. It is an independent ambulance service in St Albans, Hertfordshire. The service provides patient transport services to private patients and some NHS healthcare providers, mainly in Hertfordshire and surrounding areas. Events are not within our scope of regulation and we do not inspect events, but additionally the service provides first aid and ambulances for events and film/TV studios, on a regular basis as well as occasional repatriation.

Services were provided by emergency care assistants, ambulance technicians and registered paramedics. At the time of inspection, the service owned 13 vehicles (10 ambulances and three response vehicles). There were eight full time substantive staff and the service had a bank register of 111 staff.

The service has had a registered manager in post since 2016. Registered managers have a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is managed.

This inspection was the second CQC inspection for MET Medical Ltd. The previous inspection took place between March and April 2018.

Updated 21 June 2019

MET Medical is operated by MET Medical Ltd. The service provides a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the short-announced part of the inspection on 16 April 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 service has been previously inspected but had not been previously rated. At this inspection, we rated it as Good overall.

• Staff completed mandatory training on induction day and then annually. All staff (100%) had completed their mandatory training.

• We saw robust recruitment processes were in place to ensure suitable staff were appointed safely.

• The provider had an effective system in place to ensure vehicles were re-stocked, faulty equipment was brought to their attention, and that staff had clear lines of responsibility for the cleaning of vehicles.

• The provider shared information with local NHS hospitals to ensure plans were in place in the event of a major incident.

• Staff knew how to recognise and respond to signs of abuse and report a safeguarding concern. All staff (100%) had completed safeguarding adults and safeguarding children level 2 and level 3 training.

• The vehicles we inspected were visibly clean and fit for purpose. The provider had processes in place to manage cleanliness and there was evidence of appropriate waste segregation.

• Staff described a positive working culture and a focus on team working. Staff told us they could approach the manager or supervisor at any time to report concerns.

• The provider encouraged staff to seek feedback from patients. The feedback we reviewed was positive including comments about the professionalism of staff. The provider had not received any complaints since they had registered with the CQC.

• The provider had some governance processes in place, for example staff appraisal, monitoring staff disclosure and barring service (DBS) compliance, and monitoring staff training.

• Since our last inspection, the provider had improved governance and staffing. There was now a safe working environment for staff, with clearly written policies and documents in place.

• Staff felt supported by the leadership and there was clear administrative and clinical oversight.

• The premises and equipment were visibly clean

• There was a newly installed system of monitoring risk and incident reporting

• There was an improved evidenced compliance in training and staff competencies.

However, there were still areas that the service provider needs to improve:

• There had been improvements overall in the medicines management; however, the management did not display a complete understanding of the processes for dispensing and administration of medicines through the use of patient group directions (PGDs).

• Not all the equipment used by the service was evidenced to be regularly serviced and recorded as having been serviced

• There were not yet embedded systems for performance analysis and audits; the service could not accurately gauge service performance and trends.

• The management wanted to expend quickly into new markets but needed to demonstrate first that recent investment had lead to an embedding of all risks, polices and processes.

Following this inspection, the provider was told that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Nigel Acheson

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

Updated 21 June 2019