Air Med Transport Limited provides patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 17 May 2017, along with an unannounced visit to the ambulance service on 25 May 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 patient transport.

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 issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• The safeguarding lead was not trained to level 3 and did not have sufficient knowledge and qualifications to train their staff in safeguarding vulnerable adults and children.

• Equipment was not strapped securely within an ambulance having the potential to cause serious harm to the driver and passengers if an accident were to occur.

• One fire extinguisher had not been serviced for six years.

• The code for the safe was displayed on the door enabling access to the safe.

• Three staff had no documented Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.

• There were no translation facilities for patients whose first language was not English.

• There were no visual aids to enable staff to communicate with patients living with learning disabilities.

• Information on how to make a complaint or provide feedback was not available to patients within ambulances.

• The service did not use a risk register or similar tool to assess and monitor their risks.

• There were no deep cleaning logs.

• Staff reused disposable mop heads.

However, we found the following areas of good practice:

• Appropriate storage of medical gases.

• Equipment was mostly well maintained.

• Effective use of dynamic risk assessments to reduce the use of restraint when transferring people living with mental illness.

• Staff demonstrated a compassionate, empathetic and caring attitude towards patients, putting patient’s best interests at the heart of their work.

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 to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with four requirement notices. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals