Archived: Sneath Avenue Office

Updated 11 May 2018

Hatzola Northwest was registered with the CQC in June 2015. It is based on a model used in similar organisations both in the UK and globally. Hatzola means “rescue” or “relief” in Hebrew. Patients served by Hatzola range from the critically ill to those with minor injuries. The service is wholly funded by charitable donations from the local community and businesses. It is staffed by trained volunteers from the Jewish community and serves the community of Golders Green in North London.

Hatzola North West is a 24/7 community service, operating 365 days a year to provide a swift response to medical emergencies in the immediate area. People accessed the service by calling the dedicated telephone number which was advertised online and to the local Jewish community, the service responded to anyone who called within the postcodes covered. The service response consisted of teams of volunteer responders coordinated via radio by despatchers who handled calls to the service on dedicated mobile phones. Responders would attend the scene in their cars or by ambulance and provide medical assistance or support.

Hatzola Northwest Trust is a registered charity whose objects are the protection and preservation of health and the relief of sickness. Hatzola North West was started in 1982 by a handful of volunteers who realised the need for a neighbourhood swift response to medical emergencies.

The service is registered to provide urgent and emergency care and there has been a registered manager in post since 2016. There are currently 41 responders who are referred to as members and 17 dispatchers who answer calls and pass them to members. Members initially respond in their own cars or one of three ambulances. The service receives calls relating to all medical emergencies and all calls are responded to, more serious cases are also escalated to the local NHS ambulance trust.

There was a governance committee overseeing strategic planning and a management team including a general manager and a clinical lead who was overseen by a medical director. The day to day running of the service was managed by the general manager who oversaw the administrative functions of the organisation, the implementation of the call handling system and managed call takers.

Individual areas of work such as safeguarding, infection prevention and control and health and safety were overseen by allocated leads in these areas.

Updated 11 May 2018

Hatzola Northwest provides emergency and urgent care. We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on the 13th and 14th February 2018.

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:

• All reported incidents were documented and investigated. We were assured that volunteers understood what constituted an incident and that learning was shared.

• Vehicles were properly maintained, equipped and visibly clean. All were appropriate for use.

• Safeguarding training was delivered regularly and most volunteers demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding.

• Call handling and response times were consistently within the provider’s targets.

• Clinical protocols were used to ensure the provider met national standards. The provider followed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical and Care Excellent and the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee.

• There was evidence of good multidisciplinary team working between volunteers of the service and with other agencies and organisations.

• Staff had the correct competencies for their roles.

• We observed compassionate and respectful care. The provider actively sought feedback from patients and those close to them to monitor and improve the service.

• There was a comprehensive risk register which reflected the risks we found on inspection.

• There was a clear governance structure and leaders were visible and approachable.

• Volunteers were proud to work for the service and understood the vision and values.

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

• Ambient room temperatures were not recorded in all areas where medicines were stored. This meant that the service would not know if the temperature had exceeded the maximum or minimum recommended by the manufacturer for the medication to be effective.

• There were no formal meetings and limited appraisals of volunteer dispatchers.

• Calls were not handled in line with the provider’s policy in five out of the ten calls we listened to.

Amanda Stanford

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

Updated 11 May 2018

We found the following areas of good practice:

• All reported incidents were documented and investigated. We were assured that volunteers understood what constituted an incident and that learning was shared.

• Vehicles were properly maintained, equipped and clean. All were appropriate for use.

• Safeguarding training was delivered regularly and most volunteers demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding.

• Call handling and response times were consistently within the provider’s targets.

• Clinical protocols were used to ensure the provider met national standards. The provider followed guidance from the National Institute for Clinical and Care Excellent and the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee.

• There was evidence of good multidisciplinary team working between volunteers of the service and with other agencies and organisations.

• Staff had the correct competencies for their roles.

• We observed compassionate and respectful care. The provider actively sought feedback from patients and those close to them to monitor and improve the service.

• There was a comprehensive risk register which reflected the risks we found on inspection.

• There was a clear governance structure and leaders were visible and approachable.

• Volunteers were proud to work for the service and understood the vision and values.

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

• Ambient room temperatures were not recorded in all areas where medicines were stored. This meant that the service would not know if the temperature had exceeded the maximum or minimum recommended by the manufacturer for the medication to be effective.

• There were no formal meetings and limited appraisals of volunteer dispatchers.

• Calls were not handled in line with the provider’s policy in five out of the ten calls we listened to.