We were not able to talk with people who had received support and treatment from the service. During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager and two staff members.

We looked at six patient report forms, which identified the care and treatment provided to people. These records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The staff knew how to gain people's consent before providing treatment and where people did not have the capacity to consent, they acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We found that people were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. Equipment was maintained appropriately and was fit for purpose and safe for use.

There were sufficient staff numbers who were trained to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the service provided and for people to raise concerns if they were unhappy with the service they were provided with.

We were not able to talk with people who had received support and treatment from the service. However, we spoke with one person who was responsible for commissioning services from them. The person provided positive feedback about the service that the Port of Felixstowe provided. They said, "I cannot speak highly enough of them. Their standards are excellent." They also said, "We are entirely satisfied with the service provided."

During our inspection we spoke with the registered manager and two staff members.

We found that the provider was compliant in all of the outcome areas that we inspected. We saw that there were systems in place to ensure that people received a good quality and safe service from staff who were well trained and experienced in their role.

Port of Felixstowe is an independent ambulance service operated by Felixstowe Port and Railway Company. The Port of Felixstowe provides emergency and urgent care to the staff and visitors within the docks.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on Tuesday 24 January 2017. We did not undertake an unannounced inspection of this provider.

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. We did not see staff deliver care during the inspection.

The service only provided urgent and emergency care.

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:

• All staff had completed their required mandatory training, completed all competencies and participated in an appraisal between January and December 2016.
• Vehicles and equipment were maintained and serviced in line with legal and manufactures requirements.
• We found good oversight of controlled drug administration, storage and replenishment.
• The service had specific pathways of care for conditions requiring specialist intervention.
• We saw evidence in patient report forms and patient feedback data of staff considering the privacy and dignity of patients and their inclusion in decisions made about their care.
• Staff had a good understanding of the geographical location covered, including the time taken to respond to each area of the site.
• The service had a newly formed statement of purpose, vision and strategy, which was understood and promoted by staff.
• There was a newly established governance structure. The service appointed a medical director in April 2016. The role became substantive as of 17 January 2017 which provided some consistency..
• The service encouraged staff involvement in shaping the future of the service by participating with service delivery improvement.

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

• Documentation of when pain relief was offered or refused was not consistently recorded in the patient report forms
• Some audit tools used by the service did not reflect the work undertaken. For example, the service was auditing febrile convulsion outcomes despite never treating a child.
• The service did not have access to formal translation services which resulted in the use of internet translation sites when required.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. This included:

• The provider should review the process for accessing communication services for patients, including translation and facilities for those with a hearing impairment, and ensure that a robust and reliable system is in place.
• The provider should review the process for auditing the completion of patient report forms to ensure it is robust and captures the required information to make improvements.

Ted Baker

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals