Alpha Care Ambulance Service

Updated 9 March 2022

Alpha Care Ambulance Service is operated by Alpha care Ambulance Service Limited. The service opened in 2001 and is an independent ambulance service based in Moulsford, Oxfordshire.

The service primarily serves the communities of the Oxfordshire and Berkshire.

The service has 12 vehicles and runs from 7am to 10pm seven days a week. The main service provided is Patient transport services (PTS) and medical cover to events at private organisations. This includes non-emergency patient transport to NHS trusts, local social services and school transport for children with special needs.

Alpha Care has had a registered manager in post since July 2011 and is registered to provide the following regulated activities;

• Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely,
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury’.

The service has not carried out any emergency service transfers within the last 18 months. As the service is still registered to provide this service, this will be included within the report.

The service was last inspected in December 2019 following a compressive inspection in March 2019 in which the service was given a S29 Warning notice. The December 2019 inspection was not rated, however the warning notice was removed.

Updated 9 March 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as required improvement because:

• The governance and leadership of the service did not fully protect the safety of the patients. There was no oversight of mandatory training compliance rates. Staff did not always have or had not completed all the relevant training. Governance meetings and supervisions were not held and safety information was not collected in order to improve the service. Policies and procedures were not evidenced as being understood by staff.
• Governance and leadership of the service did not effectively manage performance. The service did not have a system to effectively manage risks or audit the quality of the service. Data was not used to make decisions and improvements. Leadership did not use monitoring of the service to support ongoing improvements which could potentially put patients at risk of avoidable harm.

However:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients. The service-controlled infection risk well. People could access the service when they needed it.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

Updated 9 March 2022

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Equipment checks and documentation were not always fully completed effectively as we found a number of out-of-date items.
• The organisation did not always have clear governance structures in place to ensure oversight of services, training was not always up-to-date.
• There was a lack of assurance that performance was being monitored effectively.
• There was no official documentation of supervision.
• There was no date for when a risk was added to the risk register.

However:

• The service had enough staff for the current workload 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.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers made sure staff were competent.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills.

Updated 9 March 2022

We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Equipment checks and documentation were not always fully completed effectively as we found a number of out of date items.
• The organisation did not always have clear governance structures in place to ensure oversight of services, training was not always up-to-date.
• There was a lack of assurance that performance was being monitored effectively.
• There was no official documentation of supervision.
• There was no date for when a risk was added to the risk register.

However:

• The service had enough staff for the current workload 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 planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills.

The provider was registered with CQC to carry out the regulated activity treatment of disease, disorder or injury so they could provide the core service emergency and urgent care. At the time of the inspection they had not delivered any emergency and urgent care. However, as the service had registered to carry out the regulated activity treatment of disease, disorder or injury in order to provide an emergency an urgent care service, it was expected that processes should be in place to be followed by staff to enable this service to be carried out safely.

Urgent and emergency care is a small proportion of the services activity. The main service was Patient Transport Services. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the Patient Transport Services section.