Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Falck (Shropshire), Atcham Business Park, Atcham, Shrewsbury.

Falck (Shropshire) in Atcham Business Park, Atcham, Shrewsbury is a Ambulance specialising in the provision of services relating to services for everyone and transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely. The last inspection date here was 14th May 2019

Falck (Shropshire) is managed by Falck UK Ambulance Service Limited who are also responsible for 2 other locations

Contact Details:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-05-14
    Last Published 2019-05-14

Local Authority:

    Shropshire

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.

12th March 2019 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Falck (Shropshire) is operated by Falck UK Ambulance Service Limited. The service provides a patient transport service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 12 March 2019.

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.

The core service provided by this service was patient transport services.

This service was not previously rated however was previously inspected in 2017 under the name of Medical Services Ltd (Shropshire). We rated it as Good overall following the most recent inspection.

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so.

  • The service controlled infection risk well. Staff kept themselves, equipment and the premises clean.

  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well. The service followed best practice when giving and storing medicine which at this service was oxygen.

  • Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each patient. They kept clear records and asked for support when necessary. Staff kept records of patients’ care. Records were clear, up-to-date and easily available to all staff providing care.

  • The service had enough staff with the right skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. The service made sure staff were competent for their roles.

  • The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents.

  • The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance, policies and procedures. Managers monitored the response times of patient journeys and used the findings to improve them.

  • The service accounted for individual health needs of patients and took these into account when planning journeys. Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care.

  • Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness. Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.

  • Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment. The service took account of patients’ individual needs.

  • People could access the service mostly when they needed it. The service monitored excessive waits for transport and acted to improve this.

  • The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with all staff.

  • Managers at all levels in the service had the right skills and abilities to run a service providing sustainable care. The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and workable plans to turn it into action. Staff were familiar with the values of the service.

  • Culture had improved since our last inspection; management visibility was better, and staff reported enjoying their role.

  • The service systematically improved service quality and safeguarded high standards of care. The service had good systems to identify risks, plan to eliminate or reduce them.

  • The service engaged well with patients, staff and local organisations to plan and manage appropriate services and collaborated with partner organisations effectively. The service was committed to improving services by learning from when things went well or wrong, promoting training and better ways of working.

    However, we also found:

  • Feedback following the submission of incidents was not consistently provided to all staff.

  • The service was not consistently meeting its key performance indicators, however, had plans and actions in place to improve results.

  • Staff at times transported patients who had an active ‘do not attempt cardio pulmonary resuscitation’ order in place without carrying the correct paperwork.

  • Not all vehicles had patient complaint leaflets on board.

  • Whilst improvements had been made since our last inspection, some staff felt that leadership was still not visible enough. Staff did identify further areas of ongoing improvement to enhance their job role.

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. Please see ‘areas for improvement’ at the end of the report for details.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central West), on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals

18th January 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Medical Services Limited (Shropshire) is operated by Medical Services Limited (MSL). The service provides high dependency patient care and a patient transport service, together with a call centre and control room. The service has been registered to provide transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely since 12 January 2015.

From its location in Atcham, the provider employed 144 staff and operated 59 ambulances. From January to December 2016, the provider carried out 124,688 patient transport journeys and 3,523 high dependency transfers. It provided transport services for adults and children.

Since 2013 the Denmark-based based Falck Group had been the largest shareholder in MSL, and in July 2015 MSL became a subsidiary of the Falck Group. As a result, the provider was going through a change process as the new parent company’s policies were rolled out across its UK bases.

We inspected this provider using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 18 January 2017, along with an unannounced visit to the provider on 31 January 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?

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:

  • Staff demonstrated a positive culture of incident reporting.

  • Staff demonstrated compliance with infection prevention and control guidelines.

  • Management of vehicle and equipment servicing was structured and controlled.

  • Appraisal rates were high.

  • Patient feedback about standards of care was consistently positive.

  • Staff demonstrated obvious regard to patients’ dignity and comfort.

  • Call-answering performance in the control room exceeded the parent company’s national targets.

  • Local managers were visible and approachable.

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

  • Staff told us they rarely received feedback on incidents they reported.

  • Staff told us they did not have protected time to clean their ambulances at the start of their shift.

  • There was no policy to ensure staff did not report for duty until at least 48 hours after their last episode of diarrhoea or vomiting, potentially putting patients at risk of infection.

  • The provider was failing to achieve its key performance indicators for transport of patients undergoing dialysis or treatment for cancer.

  • National managers were not visible.

  • Clinical waste bags awaiting collection for disposal were not always labelled in accordance with Department of Health standards.

  • Staff were not provided with adequate changing facilities, or lockers to store spare items of uniform.

  • The rest area for high dependency unit staff was not located in an appropriate area, and could not be maintained at a comfortable temperature during colder weather.

  • Staff felt senior managers did not demonstrate the parent company’s values: ‘fast, efficient, helpful competent, reliable and accessible’.

  • Staff felt the parent company had imposed significant changes to their working conditions, particularly around shift patterns, without effective consultation. Ambulance staff told us they had very little communication from their managers and did not feel engaged with or included in the provider’s plans.

  • The provider was performing poorly against its key performance indicator for providing transport for patients undergoing dialysis or receiving treatment for cancer.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve.

Ellen Armistead

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals

 

 

Latest Additions: