Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Akcess Medical Control Centre, Dunbeath Road, Elgin Industrial Estate, Swindon.

Akcess Medical Control Centre in Dunbeath Road, Elgin Industrial Estate, Swindon is a Ambulance specialising in the provision of services relating to caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, caring for children (0 - 18yrs), services for everyone and transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely. The last inspection date here was 20th July 2018

Akcess Medical Control Centre is managed by Akcess Medical Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Akcess Medical Control Centre
      Unit 2265
      Dunbeath Road
      Elgin Industrial Estate
      Swindon
      SN2 8EA
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01793677667

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Effective: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Caring: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Responsive: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Well-Led: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended
Overall: No Rating / Under Appeal / Rating Suspended

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-07-20
    Last Published 2018-07-20

Local Authority:

    Swindon

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

2nd May 2018 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

Akcess Medical Control Centre is operated by Akcess Medical Limited. The service provides a planned patient transport service within the Swindon, Bath and Gloucestershire area.

We initially inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology on 25 January 2018. During that inspection, we raised concerns about the safety of service users. Following the inspection, we took enforcement action, and issued a warning notice. Our concerns included: a lack of a governance assurance framework to provide an oversight of quality and safety, processes related to recruitment and selection, data protection, and staff training that was not sufficient to keep people safe.

In February 2018, the registered manager provided an action plan outlining the actions taken, and those planned to take, to improve the areas of concern we identified. On the basis of this, we carried out an unannounced focussed inspection on 2 May 2018. This inspection was focussed on the areas of concern reported in the warning notice and requirement notices.

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:

  • Improved arrangements for the recording, reviewing and investigating of incidents had been implemented.
  • Staff received mandatory training, including refresher training, within an appropriate timescale and with content appropriate to their role.
  • A new recruitment and selection policy had been introduced to ensure suitability for employment.
  • All staff received level 2 safeguarding training, with content that was appropriate to their role and responsibilities.
  • The processes for sharing information regarding patients’ needs had been improved.
  • Identifiable information was protected and managed appropriately.

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

  • The processes for the management of medicines did not include processes for checking medicines were correctly transported, or consider the actions to be taken when handling controlled drugs.
  • Vehicle checks were not always completed and the assurance system did not allow timely management of potential issues found with vehicles.
  • Some staff employment files were disorganised and difficult to monitor.
  • Staff did not have individual passwords when accessing patient identifiable data held by another provider, which meant there was no traceability of access.
  • There were no performance metrics in place to measure the quality and safety of the service.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (South), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

25th January 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Akcess Medical Control Centre is operated by Akcess Medical Limited. The service provides non-emergency patient transport services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on 25 January 2018 and spoke with staff and patients over the telephone during the following 10 days.

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 issues that the service needs to improve:

  • Governance processes were weak and did not provide assurance of quality and safety.

  • Policies and procedures provided guidance in a number of areas but some appeared to be plagiarised from other services and did not always reflect current practice.Management oversight of compliance with policies procedures and safety systems was poor.

  • There was no evidence that incidents, complaints or other patient feedback were properly investigated or that these events were used to improve safety and drive improvement.

  • Staff employment records were not well organised and did not provide assurance that the service’s recruitment policy had been fully complied with.

  • Not all staff were up to date with mandatory training, which was not refreshed frequently enough. There was no formal system of staff supervision and no evidence that this took place.Staff appraisals were overdue.

  • There was a lack of assurance with regard to the security of confidential patient information.

  • Information about patients’ transport needs, including important information about their medical condition or safety risks was not always complete or up to date. We also found instances where information had been overlooked or ignored when allocating transport resources.

  • There was no guidance in place for staff to follow in the event that a patient in their care deteriorated. This was despite a number of incidents where patients had collapsed and emergency services had been called.

  • Staff had received no training in respect of the specific needs of patients with complex needs and associated risks, for example patients receiving renal dialysis treatment and patients at the end of their lives.

  • There was no policy or guidance in place with regard to the transport of patients who are sedated or patients who require oxygen therapy. We could not be assured that staff were suitably trained in this regard.

  • Staff did not comply with requirements in relation to the carriage of patients’ own medicines and reported varying practice.

  • The service had taken no steps to support patients living with dementia or patients with learning difficulties. There were no communication tools available to support patients with communication difficulties.

  • There was no service level agreement in place with commissioners of the service. Key performance measures had not been agreed and were not monitored by the provider. There was little engagement or joint working with the commissioning ambulance service or receiving hospitals in relation to the quality of the service provided.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice:

  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and there were systems in place to ensure other agencies were informed.

  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and vehicles were well maintained and clean.

  • The provider undertook regular Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and driving licence checks.

  • Patients and hospital staff were very pleased with the service. They told us the service was reliable and staff communicated any delays.

  • The service telephoned new patients to discuss their transport requirements and expectations.

  • Patients described staff as helpful and caring.Staff described how they were flexible to meet patients’ needs, for example accommodating an escort who had not been pre-arranged or waiting for a patient who was delayed at the hospital to ensure they got home.

  • Staff enjoyed working for the service and felt well supported.

  • Managers were respected, visible and accessible.

  • There were regular staff meetings and communication channels were good.

Full information about our regulatory response to the concerns we have described can be found at the end of this report. 

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (south) on behalf of Chief Inspector of Hospitals

 

 

Latest Additions: