The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Archived: Falck (Alperton)

82 Sunleigh Road, Wembley, Middlesex, HA0 4LR (020) 8733 1283

Provided and run by:
Community Ambulance Service Ltd

All Inspections

01-02 March 2017

During a routine inspection

Medical services Ltd Alperton is a service that provides emergency and urgent care, including the transportation of high dependency patients and a patient transport service (PTS).

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 01 and 02 March 2017.

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 emergency and urgent care. Where our findings on emergency and urgent care – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the emergency and urgent care core service. See emergency and urgent care section for main findings.

Services we do not rate

We regulate independent ambulance services but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice within the service:

  • Excellent coordination with other providers.

  • Staff treating and caring for patients with compassion, dignity and respect.

  • Staff expressing passion about their job and dedication to ensuring patients were provided with good care.

  • Strong teamwork.

  • High levels of competency and understanding of national guidelines

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

  • Management of controlled drugs (CDs) and record keeping did not adhere with national guidance.

  • Auditing processes, and the use of outcomes to improve the service were not routinely monitored and therefore could not be used to improve the service.

  • Adequate clinical governance structures were not in place.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that they must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that they 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 emergency and urgent care services. Details are at the end of the report.

Professor Edward Baker

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals London Region

7 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited one of the hospital sites where the service is contracted to provide patient transport services (PTS). We spoke with four staff, a site manager, a controller and three people who used the service.

The three patients we met at the hospital PTS site were pleased with the transport services they used. One person commented, "They are organised, the drivers are very nice and we have a good laugh." Another person described the drivers as "lovely" and that all other staff were "very nice." On the day of our inspection, all three people said they had

experienced some delays with their transport but this was unusual. People told us that they were always contacted prior to their journey to confirm arrangements and to check if there were any changes to their needs or requirements.

Information given to the ambulance crew was appropriate and sufficient, to transport patients safely.

We saw that equipment and vehicles used by the service were checked regularly and maintained for safety. Appropriate cleaning procedures ensured that the risk of infection was minimised.

Staff received regular training to keep their skills and knowledge up to date. The four ambulance staff we spoke with felt that the training was good and relevant to their work. One member of staff said that the company was flexible and able to accommodate requests.

There were adequate systems in place to regularly monitor and assess the quality of service provided.

22 November 2012

During a routine inspection

There were no patients using Medical Services Ltd (Alperton) available to talk to us during the day of our inspection.

Equipment used and provided was maintained and up to date.

Vehicles were were maintained and checked regularly and replaced periodically. Appropriate cleaning procedures ensured that the risk of infection was minimised.

We were told that patients were given a choice of where to sit during transport that was safe and appropriate to their condition.

Information given to the ambulance crew was appropriate and sufficient, to transport patients safely.

Staff were skilled and experienced and were provided with regular periodic training.