The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Meditech Global Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Rockingham Motor Speedway, Mitchell Road, Corby, Northamptonshire, NN17 5AF (01536) 206010

Provided and run by:
Meditech Global Limited

All Inspections

15 March 2023

During a routine inspection

The service has not been previously rated. We rated it as requires improvement because:

  • The service did not always manage medicines well.
  • Managers did not always assess and monitor the effectiveness of the service. The service did not measure patient outcomes against national guidance. Staff did not always receive an appraisal.
  • Managers did not have oversight of all risks in the service.

However:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, although it was not always clear how often training should be renewed. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service generally controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and kept good care records.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity and took account of their individual needs.
  • The service took account of patients’ individual needs and were open to feedback.
  • Leaders generally had the skills and abilities to run the service and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

19 March 2018

During a routine inspection

Meditech Global Ltd – Rockingham Motor Speedway is operated by Meditech Global Limited. The service has one registered location at Rockingham Motor Speedway and provides on-site first response care to users of the speedway and to spectators. The scope of this inspection was focused on the conveyance of patients from Rockingham Motor Speedway to local hospitals; the treatment of patients on site at Rockingham Motor Speedway falls outside the scope of registration and so was not considered. The service has four vehicles, which can be used for conveying patients.The medical centre is equipped with a two bed stabilisation treatment room and a one bed burns room.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 19 March 2018. Due to the nature of the service, we did not conduct an unannounced inspection.

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? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

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 when they are provided as a single specialty service. 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:

  • There were appropriate processes and procedures for ensuring the delivery of safe, effective, high quality care. A range of standard operating procedures existed. Importantly, staff were well-versed and knowledgeable about the content of the operating procedures.
  • The service was staffed and supported by a range of health-care professionals who were competent and knowledgeable.
  • Patients were initially assessed using national based guidance. Patient record forms were used to capture treatments provided; advice given and whether patients were conveyed to a local hospital. The vehicles used were visibly clean and well maintained.
  • Whilst there had been no incidents reported during the preceding twelve months, staff were well aware of their roles and responsibilities in regards to the reporting of, and learning from incidents.
  • There existed a flat hierarchy, which promoted a mutual respect amongst all health professionals. Individuals knew about their own professional accountabilities and responsibilities but they were also respectful of the roles of others within the team.
  • The management team promoted an open culture within the service allowing staff to be candid with one another. There was a focus on learning and service enhancement and improvement.
  • The service was responsive to the needs of its patients. The environment and service provided was fit for purpose with reasonable adjustments having been made to ensure the needs of the majority of the population could be met. There were arrangements in place with the local NHS Ambulance trust for bariatric patients to be conveyed by way of a specially adapted vehicle should the need arise.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make 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 (Central region), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

13 May 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During this visit we did not speak to any people that used the service.

We found that the provider had made the required improvements to the way they recruited staff and to the way they managed their policy and training for staff on safeguarding children and adults from abuse.

Staff we spoke with told us that training overall had improved since our last visit on 22 February 2013.

22 February 2013

During a routine inspection

During our visit we were not able to speak with people who used the service. However, we contacted and spoke with a representative from the company who contracted with Meditech Global Ltd.

Overall the representative we spoke with was satisfied with the service provided. This person told us that this provider was better than their previous provider.

We found that the provider needed to make improvements to the way they recruited staff and to the way they managed their policy and training for staff on safeguarding children and adults from abuse.

Processes were in place to monitor the quality of service provision.