The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Archived: LIFELINE Medical Transport Service Limited

Double Row, Seaton Delaval, Whitley Bay, Tyne And Wear, NE25 0PP 0333 577 8899

Provided and run by:
LIFELINE Medical Transport Service Limited

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

All Inspections

21 November 2017

During a routine inspection

LIFELINE Medical Transport Service Limited is operated by the provider, which is also called LIFELINE Medical Transport Service Limited. The company provides a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 21 November 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.

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:

  • Staff were committed to providing the best quality care to patients. Staff displayed a caring and compassionate attitude and took pride in the service they were providing.

  • Staff checked patients’ requirements prior to transporting them to ensure that they were able to meet their needs.

  • We observed good multidisciplinary working between crews and other NHS staff when moving patients.

  • The management team worked with a local NHS hospital trust to provide services which met the needs of local people.

  • Staff were well supported by the management team; they told us the management team were friendly and approachable.

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

  • Equipment used on the ambulances had not been regularly serviced to check it was safe for use. The systems in place for checking the equipment had not picked up on faults identified during the inspection.

  • Vehicles had an MOT and road tax, however there was no service history available, or other audit system in place, to monitor that the vehicle remained safe for use.

  • Infection control practices were in place, but staff had not received training in relation to cleaning ambulances and there were no monitoring or audit systems to check that cleaning was effective.

  • There was an incident reporting system that ambulance crews had instigated and co-ordinated with the NHS Trust they worked with. However, these reports were not reviewed by the provider to identify actions which could minimise the chance of recurrence.

  • Staff were unaware of the Duty of Candour at the time of the inspection. However, we were assured by the management team that they supported all staff to work in an open and transparent manner.

  • Staff followed an induction programme and had completed some relevant training to ensure that they had skills to carry out their role. However, training was inconsistent; some staff had not completed relevant training to an appropriate level for their role.

  • Relevant background checks had been carried out during recruitment processes. This included, for example, a full Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. However, we found that driving licence checks had not been carried out for two members of the ambulance crew staff.

  • There were limited plans in place for managing potential disruption to the service, for example, in the event of flood or fire, at the time of the inspection.

  • The service did not currently seek feedback from patients to monitor the quality of the service.

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. We also issued the provider with two requirement notices in relation to breaches of the regulations that affected patient transport services. Details are at the end of the report.

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North of England), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

23 July 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to ascertain whether improvements had been made with training and quality assurance.

We were assisted during our inspection by the registered manager.

We did not speak to people or their representatives during our inspection. However, we viewed records relating to staff and the management of the service and spoke with staff to ascertain whether improvements had been made.

We considered staff received appropriate training to deliver care and treatment safely and systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of service people received.

20 February and 7 March 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out this inspection to ascertain whether improvements had been made with safeguarding people from abuse, staff recruitment, training and quality assurance.

We were assisted during our inspection by the registered manager.

We did not speak to people or their representatives during our inspection. However, we viewed records relating to staff and the management of the service and spoke with staff to ascertain whether improvements had been made.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. However, we considered that staff did not always receive appropriate training for their professional development.

We found that a system was not fully in place to obtain the views of people and their representatives about the care provided by staff.

7 October 2013

During a routine inspection

We inspected only the patient transport part of Lifeline Medical. This specific element of the service came under the regulated activity of, 'Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely' and therefore needed to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The other aspects of the service such as the courier service were out of scope.

We accompanied one person who was being transferred by Lifeline Medical to another hospital. At the end of the journey he gave us a 'thumbs up' and said, 'They've done well.'

Safeguarding policies were not available and staff were not aware of the procedure they would follow should abuse be suspected. They told us that safeguarding training would be useful.

Appropriate pre-employment checks were not undertaken before staff began work and staff had not received adequate training for their professional development.

It was not clear that there was a system in place to obtain the views of people who used the service. In addition, we considered that a mechanism was not fully in place to make sure that decisions were taken at the appropriate level and by the designated member of staff.

We found staff records and other records relevant to the management of the service were not always accurate or fit for purpose and could not always be located when needed.

The details of the registered manager do not appear in this report. This is because the manager is not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission.