Savoy Ventures is operated by Savoy Ventures Limited. They are an independent medical transport provider based in Stone, Kent. The service provides patient transport, and high dependency transfers.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection 31 October 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.

Savoy Ventures is operated by Savoy Ventures Limited. They are an independent medical transport provider based in Stone, Kent. The service provides patient transport, and high dependency transfers.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an announced inspection on 31 October 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:

• There was a system to ensure all incidents were recorded and monitored, with learning and outcomes shared with staff.

• Staff followed infection prevention and control procedures to reduce the spread of infection to patients. We found all vehicles were in good condition, well maintained and visibly clean and tidy.

• Staff focused on providing person centred care and enjoyed working for the company.

• Staff were caring, helpful, and respectful to patients.

• The staff planned journeys considering patient safety using information provided at the time of booking.

• Records were well maintained. Patient records were held securely and included appropriate information. The service regularly audited these.

• The service used its vehicles and resources effectively to meet patients’ needs.

• The service had a system for handling, managing and monitoring complaints and concerns.

• Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of duty of candour.

• The service encouraged feedback from patients through satisfaction surveys.

• The service encouraged feedback from staff through staff engagement forums.

• The service had effective processes for recruitment, recording disclosure and barring service checks, staff training, and competence.

• There was a positive culture within the organisation and staff told us leaders were approachable.

• There was a strong multi-disciplinary team approach across the service. We observed good collaborative working and communication from all members of the team.

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

• Although staff understood what their safeguarding responsibilities were and what constituted as abuse, we identified that staff were not trained to the correct level for safeguarding children. However, subsequent to our inspection, the service provided evidence they had since put the correct training in place.

• There was a risk register in place at the service, which was in its infancy and we had no assurances these were being tracked and managed to reduce risks.

• There was limited provision on ambulance vehicles to support people who were unable to communicate verbally or for whom English was not their first language.

• There was no information regarding how to make a complaint directly to the service on the vehicles.

• Staff were unclear on who would replace a sharps box once full, and where these would be kept until collected. In addition to this, the sharps boxes we looked at were not labelled correctly, in line with guidance.

• We found clinical waste that was not labelled in line with guidance.

• Although the defibrillator had a user test undertaken daily, the therapy cable was not checked daily, in line with manufacturer’s guidance.

• There were no communication aids available for staff to use to support patients who were unable to speak due to their medical condition or who had complex needs.

• At the time of the inspection, there were limited formal processes to audit clinical practice of staff to monitor adherence to national guidelines and local policies.

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

Professor Ted Baker

Chief Inspector of Hospitals