Yormed Ambulance Station

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Staff delivered good care and treatment following evidence-based practice and people had good outcomes. They followed and adhered to best practice guidance and standards. Staff coordinated, collaborated and shared information about patients with partner organisations where appropriate. The service had systems in place to monitor clinical outcomes for patients. Staff gained and fully recorded all patient’s consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Office staff assessed patient’s needs on the transfer booking form. Staff then verified these to identify any further requirements.

The service had a booking system in place. Providers contacted office staff to book transfers. Staff assessed patients to confirm if they needed any specialist equipment such as a bariatric stretcher.

Staff used and completed patient decision aids (PDAs) for their regional NHS ambulance service jobs as per NICE guidance.

The service had systems in place to monitor their effectiveness through audits, patient assessments, and performance compliance reports from contractors.

Staff had feedback positively about how appraisals were scheduled. Managers confirmed the staff policy on how staff were assigned shifts. Managers considered staff welfare. For example, they advised and encouraged drivers not to work second jobs and to rest in between shifts which could run over time. This complied with their service’s health and safety policy. Most staff were on the bank and did not work full time. The service’s biggest contract with their regional NHS ambulance service meant staff staggered shifts across six ambulances a day until February 2024. This left managers plenty of scope to move staff onto later shifts if necessary.

Managers and staff had forged good relations and hoped to resume and increase regulated activity under emergency and urgent care (EUC) as soon as possible after being re-rated. CQC contacted other providers who confirmed they had no contracts currently in place with the service to provide EUC. A regional NHS foundation trust contracted the service for critical care to transport blue-light transfers up until May 2024. The service had undertaken no EUC work since.

All staff were competent and completed training relevant to the patient cohorts they cared for. For example, staff completed modules on mental health awareness, dementia, autism and learning disabilities (Oliver McGowan) through e-learning for healthcare (eFH). Staff were trained in manual handling and experienced in dealing with patients with intensive support.

On CQC’s last inspection in July 2019 few staff had undergone a formal appraisal of their work performance. On this inspection CQC found all staff had appraisals. Managers explained how their appraisals process had become more comprehensive to cover absence, training and learning needs, staff’s own assessment of their skills, knowledge and statements of understanding, achievements, improvements, objectives setting to support areas of focus, and a declaration. Managers reviewed how many shifts staff had covered. CQC reviewed all staff’s annual appraisals and competency assessments. All followed the same format, were in date and order. The service had an assessment of competence form with a competency profile for all staff detailing essential and desirable criteria. Poor performance was assessed and acted upon. Manager followed guidance in the initial process as per their disciplinary policy. Managers spoke to staff, investigated any issues, and where relevant assigned themself on shifts with the staff member to address any operational shortfalls directly.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

On CQC’s last inspection in July 2019 the service did not have a formal process to monitor performance and make improvements. No performance or quality monitoring reports were prepared. On this inspection CQC found the service had systems in place to monitor and improve outcomes. Managers reviewed and ensured the service met all their key performance indicators (KPIs) and targets. All their patients were the lower risk categories of four or five. Wherever possible managers sought their commissioner’s performance data to monitor and improve patient outcomes. However, the service had no EUC patient transfers at the time of CQC’s assessment.

The service’s total EUC transfers in the seven months from November 2023 to May 2024 was 250. An NHS ambulance service contractor sent the service copies of reports with their response times until their contract ended in February 2024. CQC reviewed the last report from April to September 2024. This had an overall initial red, amber, green (RAG) rating of Good or outstanding with 99% compliance.

Managers and staff considered and recorded consent at all stages of the patient pathway. Staff recorded patient’s written consent on all paperwork and internal forms. They sought patient’s verbal consent before giving any care and treatment.

Staff completed mental capacity act (MCA) and deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) training modules as part of their care certificate completion. Office staff flagged any capacity issues with patients at the booking stage.