G4S Patient Transport Services Lordswood

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked for evidence that patients and carers were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the needs of patients were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that patient could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good with elements of outstanding for equity in experiences and outcomes, providing information and listening and involving people. This meant patients’ needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure patients were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with patients, how to respond to any relevant changes in patients’ needs.

Staff made sure patients had equal access to their service. When office staff received booking information for patient transfers, they asked about any reasonable adjustments, such as disability or sensory loss, as part of identifying additional needs. Booking staff shared this information with crews, so they had all the necessary information and knew what to expect. Staff adhered to the service’s reasonable adjustments policy. This referenced legal frameworks such as the Equality Act 2010 and NHS England's Accessible Information Standard.

The service had systems to support patients with complex healthcare needs, sensory loss, mental ill-health, learning disabilities and those living with dementia. Staff were able to access support through the operations control room and provided equipment and sensory aids where required.

Staff caring for patients between the ages of 16 and 18 years adapted the service to reflect individual needs.

Managers made sure staff, and patients, families and carers could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. On-board staff folders provided information on basic sign language, interpreting services and Makaton, which is used to communicate with people with learning disabilities, including autism.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of patients and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service planned and provided care in ways which met the needs of local people, and the communities served. They worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care where relevant. For example, leaders met with other organisations to discuss specific needs in their area.

Managers ensured patients who did not respond to planned collection times were contacted to make alternative arrangements and check on their wellbeing. Staff escalated concerns to the control room and, if needed, completed a safeguarding referral or contacted third-party services if they were concerned.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at developing appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service complied with NHS England’s accessible information standard. Crews used communication aids for non-verbal, speech-impaired or neurodiverse patients. All vehicles had pictograms onboard with phrases and smiley faces, which helped staff to ask children or people who were speech-impaired how they felt, including assessing pain scores.

One example of excellent practice was that some vehicles had been equipped with digital screens that displayed community boards to signpost patients to third-party organisations and local support networks. Information was available on the service’s website, and there was a member of staff responsible for keeping all information up to date. Patients told us they had first learned about other support services thanks to the on-board information provided by the service. Leaders planned to install the digital patient information screens across all new fleet vehicles, referred to as ‘social prescribing’ screens.

Staff were observed openly communicating with patients and their carer’s, providing information in a clear and understandable way. Staff responded to questions asked by patients openly and honestly. Staff used accessible ways to communicate when patients’ protected characteristics or other needs made this necessary, for example, they used interpretation and translation services and made reasonable adjustments.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service was exceptional at enabling patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They always involved patients in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients were involved in decisions about their needs related to patient transport service provision. Leaders told us patients knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care and support, including how to raise any concerns or issues, and could do so in a range of accessible ways.

The service set up a patient forum who met biannually with the leadership team. Leaders shared data and outcomes with the patient forum and listened and acted on their feedback. For example, patients fed back that they were sometimes transported on unnecessarily long journeys to drop off other patients first. The provider acted and made sure the logistic supervisors were monitoring this issue. Leaders told us the planned introduction of ‘Auto Planning’ should significantly reduce this type of crossover in the future.

In another example, patients reported that text messages from staff advising updated estimated time of arrivals were arriving too late. Leaders raised this with their business intelligence team and digital software provider, who were tasked with monitoring the communications. They found that delays often occurred when the vehicles navigation system was in an area with no or poor signal. This led to the provider testing an improved system to support vehicle tracking.

We saw complaints posters with QR codes in most vehicles, which patients could use if they wished to provide feedback. The service and staff made it easy for patients to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Evidence showed that staff ensured patients, their families, and carers felt confident to complain, knowing they would be taken seriously and treated compassionately. Complaints or concern were investigated thoroughly, and patients received a response in suitable time because complaints were dealt with in an open and transparent way, with no repercussions.

The April 2026 ‘Integrated Governance Committee’ report showed the service had 22 open complaints across all bases for investigation. The complaints were all within the service’s current key performance indicator (KPI), and 50% were received from renal patients. Overall, long wait times were a major theme. Data from the Patient Safety Incident Committee group meeting for February 2026 showed that between October 2025 and January 2026, the service had reviewed 176 complaints about long wait times, which equated to 0.2% of all patients during that period. Because of the volume of complaints about delays, the service planned to introduce a regular Patient Experience Committee meeting.

We reviewed 3 formal complaint responses which showed managers followed a consistent approach to investigation. The service had recently implemented the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF) to review complaints, focusing on learning from complaints.

Staff kept patients informed about how their feedback was acted on. Where improvements were required, patients had the opportunity to be involved in shaping solutions and measuring the impact. For example, reporting recurrent themes, such as delays in same-day transfers to the Integrated Care Board.

Leaders viewed learning from complaints and concerns as an opportunity for improvement and gave examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service usually made sure that patients could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it, most of the time.

Patients could access the service when they needed to and received the right care promptly most of the time. Staff monitored waiting times for collection and delivery to pre-arranged appointments for efficiency and timeliness. The service had to meet various targets set by their contract.

Managers made sure patients could access services when needed and received treatment within agreed timeframes and professional guidelines most of the time. For example, control room staff worked to keep the number of cancellations to a minimum. When patients had their appointments cancelled at short notice, staff made sure they were rearranged as soon as possible, at the patient’s convenience.

Managers and staff worked to make sure patients did not wait longer than expected for collection and return home most of the time. Staff planned transport arrangements carefully, particularly for those with complex health and social care needs.

However, there were times when patients were delayed in reaching their destination. The service noted themes with on-the-day bookings and challenges with some renal patients and monitored these closely. There were several contributory factors, including traffic congestion, patients not being ready when staff arrived to collect them from home or hospital, or mechanical breakdowns. Staff escalated unforeseen delays to the control room and the receiving healthcare provider.

The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders listened to information about patients who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide exceptionally tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service monitored patient access and outcomes to identify potential health inequalities. Leaders used this information to inform service planning and delivery. There were systems and processes for gathering feedback, which enabled collection of information about equity of patients’ experiences and outcomes, including complaints by location and severity (minor, moderate and major).

As previously discussed throughout this report, leaders engaged with the public and involved patients in the future service planning. New technologies were identified and implemented.

The service reported on positive interventions and kept records for each hospital, including how staff had to adapt care when discharge information was incorrect, for example, when the wrong type of mobility aid was provided, or there were delays in take-home medicines. They also made sure that patients had ways to access their properties before leaving hospital. The challenges meant staff were sometimes delayed in conveying patients. However, patients appreciated staff going the extra mile to make sure their journey was safe and that avoidable delays or issues were mitigated.

Staff supported patients to make informed choices about their continuing needs which relied on patient transport. Their family or carer was involved if they wished.

Staff encouraged patients to bring relevant care plans and information about their wishes for resuscitation with them when they attended appointments. Similarly, staff supported individuals who required medicines, while away from home, to carry them during journeys. Staff recorded this information to ensure if was handed over at the end of the journey.

Staff made sure that any information provided to patients by the discharging service accompanied the patient and was taken with them on arrival home.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.