The Care Quality Commission
  • Ambulance service

Hatzola Edgware

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Mowbray House, 58-70 Edgware Way, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 8DJ

Provided and run by:
Hatzola Edgware

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

All Inspections

26 October 2022

During a routine inspection

We have not previously rated this service. We rated it as good because:

  • 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, and gave patients pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • 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.
  • The leadership, governance and culture were used to drive and improve the delivery of high-quality person-centred care. 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:

  • The sharps bin located in the ambulance bay was not secure. It had a lock, but the lock had broken and the bin could be opened. However, this risk was mitigated immediately by the provider by storing it within a padlocked container, and they replaced the bin following the inspection.

14-15 November 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Hatzola Edgware is operated by Hatzola Edgware. The organisation provides emergency and urgent care ambulance services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on 14 November 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?

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:

  • Managers documented and investigated all incidents reported to them.

  • We were assured that members (volunteer responders) understood what constituted an incident and how to report it.

  • Vehicles and equipment were visibly clean, properly maintained and fit for purpose.

  • Safeguarding training was regularly delivered and volunteers demonstrated a good understanding of safeguarding and how to raise concerns.

  • Members who attended incidents and dispatchers received induction training appropriate to their roles.

  • Clinical protocols were used to ensure standards met national practice guidelines.

  • Members and dispatchers understood the relevant consent and decision making requirements of legislation and guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

  • Staff were caring, considerate and respectful of both patients and family members or carers.

  • Hatzola Edgware followed guidance issued by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Joint Royal Colleges Ambulance Liaison Committee (JRCALC).

  • Response to call times was consistently within the provider’s target of six minutes.

  • There was evidence of good multi-disciplinary team work both within the organisation and with external agencies.

  • The provider actively sought feedback about the service from patients, relatives and carers.

  • The provider’s vision was shared and understood by all those whom we spoke with.

  • The trustees and leadership team were visible and approachable.

  • Members and dispatchers felt included in decisions made by the registered manager and the board of trustees.

  • Risks recorded on the risk register accurately reflected most of our findings during this inspection.

  • All volunteers were proud to work for Hatzola Edgware and wanted to make a difference for patients.

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

  • Medical gases were not stored securely in compliance with guidance from the British Compressed Gases Association.

  • The provider did not obtain satisfactory references as evidence of appropriate conduct in current or previous employment.

  • There was no formal appraisal process at the time of this inspection.

  • The ‘Annual Performance & Development Review Guidance’ which related to a new appraisal system planned for January 2018 did not include dispatchers.

  • There was variable compliance with National Clinical Performance Indicators for asthma and single limb fractures

  • The carbon copy of the patient record form was not always handed to the healthcare provider when patients were transferred, and members did not routinely make a record on the PRF if the patient or carer declined to accept it.

Amanda Stanford

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