G4S Patient Transport Services Lordswood

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that patients and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patient’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring patient were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good with an element of outstanding for supporting people to live healthier lives. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good and patients’ feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure patients’ care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff shared key information to keep patients safe when handing over their care to others. They knew what journeys they were to undertake and which patients they would be picking up and taking to appointments or returning home. Shift changes and handovers included all necessary key information to keep patients safe.

We saw patients were generally calm, their faces appeared relaxed, and they were comfortable during journeys and transfers.

Staff took account of patients’ communication needs, particularly those with disabilities or sensory loss. We observed staff using appropriate skills to engage with patients and assess their needs. They also took account of cultural and social needs when planning patient transport activities.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service usually planned and delivered patients’ care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high-quality care. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, with clear references to current national guidelines. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through meetings and management newsletters. Staff said they received information through staff boards within each base and email notifications.

Polices and processes were aligned with professional standards and NHS England Non-Emergency Patient Transport Services (NEPTS) eligibility criteria. Policies were in date and had clear objectives and aims, and version control was visible at the start of each document.

The service captured conveyance data for patients who were frequent attendees of the local dialysis unit and relied on the transport service to get to and from appointments. We spoke with staff at a local dialysis unit, who told us patients mostly arrived on time, so their treatment schedule was not compromised. They were collected swiftly on completion, but if there were delays staff phoned ahead so that clinics could accommodate the patient. Patients told us they were contacted by the provider if there was a delay in the expected ambulance arrival.

The service conveyed a small number of children. Staff followed the ‘Conveying Paediatric Patients (Children and Babies) Policy’. Ambulance Care Assistants and Advanced Ambulance Care Assistants who were non-clinical, transported children with either a medical escort for hospital-to-hospital transfers or from the treating trust or a parent/guardian.

On longer journeys, staff made sure patients had access to drinks and food, where necessary.

We reviewed 5 patient transport records and found that the local NHS trusts shared only relevant information, including a brief risk assessment to determine suitability for low-risk patient transport. Information shared was clear and appropriate.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and multiple NHS and independent services to support patients. Staff made sure patients only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when patients moved between different services.

Staff worked together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care and deliver a quality service, ensuring, for example, that they started their shifts on time and planned patient collection routes to maximise efficiency.

Staff reported healthy working relationships with external organisations they came into regular contact with. For example, the operations manager was in daily contact with the Kent and Medway Integrated Care Group. Managers in the bookings team and telephone operations centre were in constant contact with outpatient departments and wards, and ambulance care assistants were well known at each NHS trust. We asked NHS trusts about their working relationships with the service, and their responses were positive. For example, “Ambulance support workers understand how systems work and complete additional checks to avoid failed discharges.”

Managers had fully considered staff welfare, and breaks were factored into daily schedules. There was a health and safety policy, and a ‘Signpost for Support Resources – Managers Guideline’, which contained a range of support services for staff and their families. For example, a wide range of mental health support, child mental health support, and structure counselling. Staff had access to a range of medical resources, including nurses, virtual GP, advanced practitioners, and physiotherapists.

Discharge and transport arrangements considered patients’ individual needs, circumstances and ongoing care arrangements. Information was shared between teams and services to ensure continuity of care.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was committed and showed excellent practice by consistently supporting patients to manage their health and wellbeing, enabling them to maximise independence, choice and control. It proactively promoted healthier lifestyles and worked to reduce future reliance on care and support.

The service supported patients to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported them to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

G4S Patient Transport Services proactively implemented its Community Wellbeing Programme to promote healthier lifestyles and improve access to local support, such as dementia support and the 'Herbet Protocol' (Dementia Scheme) which is a national scheme used in health and social care to support people living with dementia or other vulnerabilities who may be at risk of going missing. The service installed digital information screens in a portion of patient transport vehicles, with a clear plan to expand this feature across the fleet. These screens displayed up-to-date public health messaging and signposted patients to relevant local community services, increasing awareness and encouraging individuals to engage with support available in their area.

Leaders supported the training of over 1,000 ‘Dementia Friends’ including control staff and ambulance technicians and other staff across the organisation. They redeveloped vehicles to support patients living with dementia and staff went above and beyond to ensure that every part of the patient’s journey was safe, calm and supportive. As a result of this commitment, the service was awarded Kent’s ‘Dementia Friendly Organisation Award’ in 2026.

The service demonstrated a strong commitment to prevention and health promotion by embedding accessible, real-time information into the patient journey. Feedback from patients confirmed a positive impact, with patients reporting they had discovered previously unknown services through the initiative. This innovative approach shows how the service consistently used patient contact time to empower individuals with knowledge, enabling them to make informed choices and take positive steps towards improving their health and wellbeing.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored patients’ care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of patient themselves.

The operations team monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment through audit and benchmarking, comparing performance with other similar services. Service leaders updated and shared a comprehensive dashboard with the governance committee, the board and with Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (ICB), as part of their contractual obligations. The service used these findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes, including patients arriving at treatment on time.

The service had systems to monitor and improve outcomes. Data from the patient transport overview (November 2025 to April 2026) showed that 36 regular audits were completed, either daily, weekly or monthly. Examples included vehicle and equipment compliance spot checks, touch-point checks, patient home risk assessments, behavioural safety observations, and health and safety site inspections. The data showed that during that period staff completed 2,574 audits, like infection prevention control, environment and equipment daily checks resulting in 1,476 actions, which were colour coded to show actions ‘to do’, ‘in progress’, and actions ‘completed’.

Managers reviewed and ensured the service met most of their key performance indicators (KPIs) and targets. Data was captured daily and reported monthly, showing that G4S Patient Transport Lordswood conveyed an average of 30,000 patients per month. Performance and journey data included KPI’s, separated into inbound and outbound journeys. Managers captured long waits over 2 and 4 hours, as well as missed appointments. For example, the February 2026 report included January 2026 activity data, which showed a total of 26,601 journeys transporting 30,713 patients. Of these, 476 involved waits of over 4 hours (1.79% of the total). There were 23 missed appointments, which resulted in no harm, and 15 failed journeys due to maintenance issues. The information fed into governance reporting.

In addition, the service captured fleet management data, including driver performance information, such as speed, vehicle maintenance issues, location of fleet issues, and driving safety concerns. Managers used tracking devices to capture the data and broke data down by base to analyse themes and trends.

The provider considered health inequalities and took steps to ensure outcomes for people with protected characteristics were in line with the wider community.

The service monitored and reacted to avoidable incidents of harm. Learning from investigations was shared with the aim of making improvements. For example, leaders analysed incident data using a safety model showing the relationship between near misses, minor incidents, and serious accidents, typically represented as a colour coded triangle. Data included near misses, accidents that did not result in time lost, time lost, and RIDDOR-reportable events (a legal requirement which requires service leaders to report work related incidents to the Health and Safety Executive. Data for January 2026 showed 28 road traffic incidents and 1 RIDDOR-reportable incident.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff supported people with their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff completed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves, while Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards ensure that any restrictions on a person’s freedom are lawful, necessary, and in their best interests. Booking staff flagged capacity issues at the point of referral when these were clearly documented.

Staff gave patients clear information, support, and time to make informed decisions, using accessible formats where needed. They followed national guidance to obtain consent and understood how to support patients who lacked capacity or experienced mental ill-health. Staff assessed capacity appropriately and followed the service’s policies on consent, MCA, DoLS and restrictive practice. As previously discussed, the on-board staff folder contained information to support staff to make decisions about patients’ mental capacity and how to escalate concerns.

Patients told us they were involved in decisions about their care. We observed staff seeking verbal consent before providing support.

Staff used interpreters, including British Sign Language (BSL) and face-to-face services, to support informed consent. They sought permission before sharing information with family or friends.