The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Archived: G4S Facilties Management (UK) Limited - Chelmsford

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Swift House, Hoffmanns Way, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1GU 07545 510440

Provided and run by:
G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited

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

All Inspections

28 and 29 January 2020

During a routine inspection

G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited - Chelmsford is operated by G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited . The service provides a patient transport service for adults and children.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the short notice announced inspection on 28 and 29 January 2020.

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.

This is the first time we have rated this service. We rated it as Good overall.

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.

  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.

  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.

  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work.Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

    However we also found:

  • They mostly managed medicines (oxygen) well. However, on one ambulance we found some out of date consumable items and an external oxygen storage area lacked warning signage.

  • However, we found two out of date paper policies at one site.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals, on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

3 & 17 October 2017

During a routine inspection

G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited provides patient transport services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 3 October 2017, along with an unannounced visit to the provider on 17 October 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. Where our findings on G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited, for example, management arrangements, also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the patient transport services core service.

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:

  • We observed call handlers consistently dealing with callers in a respectful, compassionate, and caring way.

  • Call handlers followed the provider’s transport eligibility criteria at all times. If callers did not meet the eligibility criteria, call handlers provided them with a range of alternative pathways to source transportation.

  • Staff we spoke with universally agreed that the management structure and new managing director was having a positive impact on the service.

  • The provider had clear systems for responding to concerns and complaints and shared learning with staff to minimize events in the future.

  • We inspected a number of vehicles at all the locations we visited and found vehicles to be visibly clean, maintenance was carried out in line with service schedules, and vehicles used for their intended purpose.

  • Patients we spoke with told us they felt safe in the service saying staff were kind, helpful and respected their needs at all times.

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

  • Training rates fell below the providers expected compliance rates.The provider had an action plan in place to address any shortfalls, scrutinised by its senior leadership and governance team.

  • The provider’s contracts have a performance regime set by NHS commissioners, the performance is bench marked against various key performance indicators, for example journeys times. Combined across all contracts and performance regimes, the provider has shown performance improvement within its contracts. However, current performance is 84% against targets of between 90% and 95%. The provider has plans in place to monitor and improve on performance.

  • We spoke with a number of staff at various locations and found some had limited knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and duty of candour.

Following this inspection, we issued the provider with two requirement notices that affected the safe and effective domains. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult 

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals, on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals