At our most recent inspection we found that the Provider had addressed our areas of concern and had implemented an effective recruitment process. We did not speak with people who used the service as part of this inspection.
At the time of our inspection the provider did not have a registered manager in post.
We looked at ten patient report forms which were filled in when anyone required treatment. We saw an assessment of the patient's condition had been undertaken and appropriate treatment given.
We found both the medical centre and the vehicles to be clean, tidy and in a good state of repair.
We saw records to show staff were regularly completing the required paperwork in relation to the safe keeping of medicines .
We saw equipment used at the service was regularly maintained to help ensure equipment was suitable for purpose.
We found the provider had not operated effective recruitment procedures in order to ensure staff were of good character and had suitable qualifications, skills and experience.
Records were kept securely and could be located promptly when needed
The provider had recently introduced a 'Questionnaire on Patient Care Service at Medical Centre, Brands Hatch' which asked people who had used the service to comment on the treatment they had received.
We spoke with members of staff and the management of the service. Staff we spoke with were clear about their priorities and told us how they supported people. We saw that staff were provided with information to support the delivery of safe care at Brands Hatch Race Circuit events.
The provider informed us that the service used qualified paramedics, and some of these also worked for other ambulance providers. The provider confirmed that they checked the registration of staff who worked for the service with the Health and Care Professions Council Register. However we found that procedures for recruitment of staff were not robust and the provider had not gathered sufficient details about applicants to enable them to make fully formed decisions about their suitability.
We found that the provider did not have effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive. We also found that the provider was not always protecting people against the risks associated with medicines, spread of infection and unsuitable equipment.