G4S Patient Transport Services Lordswood

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of patients who used services and wider communities. We checked that leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant service leadership was of a good standard with elements of outstanding for capable and compassionate leaders, governance, management and sustainability and learning, improvement and innovation. Leaders and the service culture they created drove and improved high-quality, person-centred care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of patients and their communities.

The service’s mission was “to be the most reliable, secure, caring and sustainable specialist transport provider”, supported by a clear vision that managers and leaders could describe.

The vision was set out in the staff handbook as “a flexible, safe, and compassionate transport service that ensures the timely collection, care, delivery, and return of patients to their destinations, achieved through a skilled, empathetic workforce, supported by up-to-date technology, to meet the complex needs of those we serve."

Leaders were clear about their roles and how to deliver the service strategy. G4S Patient Transport Service Lordswood was undergoing planned changes to reduce operational sites from 11 to 6, including. Leaders developed and implemented a People Transition Plan, ensuring staff were consulted and kept informed about changes, including moves to different bases. They set up dedicated human resources (HR) and operational consultation teams, and site mobilisation representatives visited locations to provide updates and support.

We saw clear timelines, regular updates and accessible points of contact for staff. Leaders demonstrated good oversight through structured reporting. Leaders told us staff responded positively and gave constructive feedback. The service used this feedback to support changes and promote a better work–life balance.

Staff understood how their work contributed to achieving the aims and objectives set out within the strategy, focusing on meeting patients’ needs and providing a high-quality service.

Leaders promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and carers, as well as staff, could raise concerns without fear.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They described the leadership culture as inclusive and spoke about feeling valued and respected. Relationships between staff were positive, with strong teamwork and collaboration. Examples of collaborative working included meaningful engagement with local safeguarding teams, hospital staff, and daily contact with the Integrated Care Board.

Leaders recognised and celebrated team and individual staff achievements. Staff told us they were thanked for their work.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had exceptionally inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They always did so with integrity, openness and honesty and understood the impact their behaviours and leadership had on patient outcomes and experience.

The service had a clear leadership and management structure designed to support the service’s strategy and delivery of services, within contractual obligations. Leaders were accountable, proactive, and focused on the continual improvement and development of safe and equitable care. On the first day of the assessment leaders made themselves available to meet with us, with some travelling long distances across the country. This enabled meaningful discussions about strategy, business plans, governance and leadership.

The managing director (MD) reported to the president of the organisation and had monthly performance reviews. The MD held management responsibility for 7 directors and heads of departments, including the registered manager. The MD was visible and approachable and fostered a proactive, accountable, professional and caring culture. They supported the registered manager to monitor and improve services. Staff told us that they had seen noticeable improvements since the MD came into post 2 years ago and that they led by example. The MD met fortnightly with other members of the executive committee to ensure organisational oversight, including changes to legislation, health and safety, finances, and business development.

The registered manager had the skills and experience to ensure they complied with ‘The Health and Social Care Act’ (2008, 2014) . They understood the service’s priorities and challenges. They were passionate, professional and clear about their role. They were also the Head of Governance.

The registered manager had good oversight of risk and governance and understood the importance of their role, ensuring the service was assessment ready. They used mini mock assessments and reports to monitor quality, performance and staff practice. They supported improvement and introduced practical tools to support staff, including an onboard staff manual for use during patient transport. Their experience as an ambulance technician helped them understand the role and the challenges staff faced.

Other members of the leadership team for patient transport services, included the contracts manager, who liaised daily with the Integrated Care Board, reviewed and reported on key performance data, and was supported by the operations director. The health and safety director oversaw the health and safety manager, both of whom were visible and approachable. The patient safety manager was supported by the patient safety director. Leaders were visible and approachable across the service for patients and staff. Staff felt leaders supported them to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.

Leaders took incidents seriously and knew how to deal with concerns when raised, which promoted a positive culture within the service. Leaders were visible and involved in patient-facing activities to assess for themselves how the service was running.

Staff were invited to team meetings and could directly access the registered manager to ask questions or make suggestions. Information was cascaded to staff through, emails, staff notice boards and hand-held devices.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where patients felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Leaders and staff acted with openness, honesty, and transparency. The service employed a ‘Freedom to Speak Up’ Guardian (FTSUG) who was also the staff relationship owner. They had developed meaningful relationships with staff. They were visible, approachable and provided independent advice and support for staff. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and offer ideas, and the culture enabled staff to feel confident their voices were heard.

The FTSUG displayed information at all bases and in the vehicles, outlining who they were, their remit, and how staff could speak up. Their phone number and email address were clearly displayed along with a QR code so staff could have direct access.

We saw evidence that leaders acted upon concerns raised by staff. The FTSUG was passionate about enabling staff to speak up, without fear of detriment. When concerns were raised, leaders investigated them sensitively and confidentially. Local senior leaders were aware when staff who had raised serious concerns spoke up and took steps to investigate and address these matters.

The FTSUG maintained a ‘Freedom to Speak Up’ register, and management reports contained analysis of concerns over time and associated action plans.

The service had a Patient Transport ‘Speak Out’ initiative. Information was treated confidentially, recorded using reference codes, and categorised by subject, for example, bullying, harassment, discrimination, retaliation and ethical concerns. Records confirmed that 19 staff used the ‘Speak Out’ QR code to report concerns from January to April 2026, with 8 concerns still under investigation. The FTSUG categorised the concerns using a colour coded risk matrix and managed this as part of the governance dashboard.

Patients, their families, and carers were provided with information explaining how to raise a concern and how this would be investigated. Senior staff were encouraged to respond to immediate concerns or complaints with a view to resolution. There were policies to support the complaints process.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. Staff work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for everyone.

Leaders acted to improve negative experiences for staff with protected equality characteristics. They took steps to remove bias from practices to ensure equality of opportunity and experience for the workforce within their place of work, and throughout their employment.

The service was inclusive, treated staff fairly, and had systems to support national diversity, equity and inclusion principles in accordance with the Equality Act (2010). Managers used several policies to support the workforce diversity, for example, the Neurodiversity Policy reinforced the rights of all employees to carry out their duties free from bullying and harassment. Other policies, such as the Flexible Working Policy, and the Financial Wellbeing Policy showed how the provider supported and aimed to retain its workforce.

The service acted to prevent and address bullying and harassment at all levels and for all staff, with a clear focus on those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those from excluded or marginalised groups. Staff felt everyone was treated fairly and said they would feel confident to report negative behaviour or attitudes.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. Staff used these to manage and deliver high-quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. Staff always acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The service had strong governance systems that gave leaders clear oversight of safety, quality and performance. Structured meetings were held regularly to review risks, policies and processes and to make sure contractual duties were met. Leaders kept clear accurate records and used high‑quality data to inform decisions. This information was shared effectively with the board, staff, and stakeholders.

Leaders reviewed and used performance data well. They compared results across the service and used benchmarking to identify areas for improvement. Managers monitored each base closely and took prompt action to improve performance and reduce risk where needed.

The service used live digital dashboards to monitor activity, capacity and risk in real time. This meant leaders had up-to-date information to support safe and effective care.

Governance and operational teams worked well together, and there was evidence of continuous integration of learning and innovation. They produced clear, structured monthly reports for the Integrated Care Board, showing performance, risks and actions. This demonstrated strong accountability, openness and continuous improvement.

The senior leadership team (SLT) were in daily contact, and leaders had an open-door policy and a live digital chat system to support real-time communication. The SLT also met through the ‘Strategic Quarterly Review’ meetings, following a clear agenda to review strategic planning, set objectives, and complete a comprehensive review of the service, as well as training, fleet, accountability and standards. These meetings were held over a full day, and the head of governance produced a comprehensive slide deck, including data and changes to process and practice.

For example, in the April 2026 report, the service reviewed what it described as the ‘anatomy of a service’. This concept aimed to achieve compliance with the Health and Social Care Act (2008) and other health regulations. The services defined governance as: “Governance isn’t just a department’s job, it is the golden thread that runs through the organisation, connecting real time operational reality with executive oversight and regulatory compliance.”

The ‘Integrated Governance Committee’ met monthly and followed a formal agenda, including the review of actions, guidance, compliance and risk. This included the health and safety report, which included information on frontline staff assaults, performance data, corporate strategy, and critical incidents. The fleet management team also shared reports on fleet maintenance, telematics, speed management, asset management, and contingency vehicle hire. Minutes were recorded and clearly presented.

The Integrated Governance Committee also produced monthly performance data in a clear slide deck format, with dashboards that were easy to interpret. For example, data from April 2026 showed the service met 7 of 10 key performance indicators (KPIs). The report highlighted challenges with same‑day bookings for hospital discharges, where patients were recorded as ready when they were not. This meant the KPI timing started, when patients were recorded as ready for discharge, but delays occurred on arrival because the patients were not actually ready. The provider had raised this issue with the Integrated Care Board.

The report showed the number of journeys completed at each hospital site, and ward. It also showed ‘on the day’ (OTD) booking data for each trust, and by day of the month. It also included data on mobility requirements, such as the number of patients conveyed using wheelchairs or stretchers.

The registered manager was also the Caldicott Guardian, with responsibility to act as the “conscience of the organisation”when handling and sharing patient information. They were responsible for information governance and making sure records were stored securely and that any data breaches were reported, acted upon and used for learning.

Staff at all levels were clear about their roles and accountabilities. Staff had job descriptions, and these set out expectations and responsibilities. Where senior staff had designated tasks related to audit and monitoring quality of services, they understood what was required of them.

Managers could find the data they needed, in accessible formats, to understand performance, make decisions and support improvements. Information systems were integrated and secure, and data or notifications were submitted to external organisations as required.

There was a clear and effective process for identifying recording, managing and mitigating risk. Risks were recorded within the governance dashboard, with 9 active risks identified. These were categorised across areas such as learning and development, patient experience, safeguarding, clinical quality and governance. Records confirmed that the service had a vacant training lead post and had identified and acted on a risk relating to delays in reviewing complaints, which was initially rated as high risk in October 2025, and reduced to medium risk by December 2025.

Audit processes and the outcomes were used to maximise the quality of services. Where improvements were required, leaders ensured action plans were developed and monitored, leading to positive changes, for example, the planned improvements to the new fleet of vehicles, improvements to the digital systems, live dashboards and the mitigation of risks related to training system issues.

The service had plans to manage unexpected events, including a business continuity plan, and major incident plans.

The service had not reported any data breaches, and systems were secure. Patient identifiable information was handled correctly.

Leaders made sure that accurate information was discussed and shared with key staff, for example, through quality and performance boards displayed across each base.

We reviewed several service-level and provider policies and found these were up to date and readily available to staff, with clear leadership oversight of their accuracy and validity.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service clearly understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, and services worked seamlessly for patient. Staff always share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Leaders were passionate about their community and had been involved in several initiatives through community engagement. Staff and leaders collaborated with relevant external stakeholders and agencies to improve care and treatment for patients using the service.

For example, the service hosted an annual trip for veterans, taking them out for the day. Last year the service visited the Poppy Factory in Maidstone which makes thousands of poppies for Remembrance Day. Crews who accompanied the veterans were themselves veterans which added an extra layer of understanding.

Another example was the ‘Teaming up for Men’s Mental Health’ charity rounders match. Crews from across Kent and London raised funds for the local ‘Mind’ Charity. The event was part of the service’s ‘Men’s Mental Health Campaign’ month. In addition, the organisation matched many of the donations, further supporting local charities.

As part of the services winter flu vaccine campaign, the service donated a £1 for every staff member vaccinated by October 2026, raising funds for ‘Mind’.

The service also facilitated a staff gardening group, which produced a newsletter. We were told that a group of volunteers met monthly and helped people in the community with their gardening needs.

The registered manager met with external stakeholders and regional networks to understand the needs of the community and the provider’s ambitions.

Leaders and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public, and local organisations to plan and manage services.

The evidence showed an exceptional standard. The service had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Staff often encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for patients. Staff actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

Service leaders were passionate and proactive about quality improvement and innovation. The evidence throughout this report demonstrate that leaders and staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. Several staff we spoke with had a good understanding of, and were actively involved in, implementing quality improvement methods, and had been trained in this area of work.

Staff were supported and given time to develop their skills around improvement and innovation and to pursue areas of interest within the service. Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research, and we were given examples of this in practice.

Staff and leaders were committed to excellence that centred on patient experience. Where they saw a need, they worked together to find a solution. For example, the co-production of a new fleet of vehicles helped to reduce risks and improve the patient experience. The service also introduced onboard ‘social prescribing’ digital screens, and on-board information folders, which were wipe clean and readily available, mitigating risks associated with digital failure or poor internet connectivity.

In addition, the service was progressing a digital transformation to enhance logistical information for the control centre. This aimed to ensure that issues could be reported in real time by introducing systems that would override the current GPS tracking system, which had been found to be unreliable in areas with limited signal.