Archived: Health Tech Services Group Limited

Updated 2 September 2026

Health Tech Services Group Limited is operated by Health Tech Services Group Ltd and provides patient transport, diagnostics and personal care. The service provides a prebooked private funded service and had no contracts with either NHS Trusts, social services or other organisation. Patients were transferred by ambulance between hospitals, home and other places such as care homes. The service had undertaken 60 prebooked patient transfers since its registration in April 2025. The service has a registered manager who has been in post since the service was registered.

This was the first assessment of Health Tech Services Group Limited for patient transport and diagnostics service groups. We rated patient transport as Inadequate. At the same time, we assessed patient transport services, we also inspected the diagnostics and screening service. However, the service had no diagnostic patient activity, so we were unable to assess or rate the diagnostics service.

The personal care service group was assessed in November 2025, and the report was published in February 2026. It was rated Good.

The overall rating for this service is Requires Improvement.

The service is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Transport services, triage and medical advice provided remotely.
• Diagnostics and screening
• Personal care

We assessed this service using our comprehensive methodology. We carried on site assessments on 21 and 30 April 2026. We gave the service notice that we were coming to inspect to ensure the service was open.

Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate. Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This was the first assessment of Health Tech Services Group Limited, patient transport and diagnostics service groups. We rated patient transport as Inadequate; we were unable to rate the diagnostics service as no patients had received the regulated activity since registration. The personal care service group was assessed in November 2025, and the report was published in February 2026 and was rated good. Overall, the service was rated Requires Improvement.

We were informed during our onsite assessment that the Home Office had revoked the service’s sponsorship licence for non-compliance of the employment of skilled workers. This would mean the service would be unable to continue with its current workforce. There was no demonstrated strategic planning to address this. Discussions with staff about their futures were misleading following the revocation of the sponsor licence. Leaders communicated to staff that the revocation of their licence was malicious. Staff were led to believe that the company had submitted all required documentation. The Home Office was clear in their response; the provider had failed to supply all the requested documentation, and there was evidence already supplied that workers were not paid in line with sponsorship guidance.

The service had a negative learning culture; employment and other arrangements made it difficult for both staff and patients to raise concerns. Staff did not always manage risks to patients and themselves. Not all staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff employment arrangements did not provide assurance for ongoing safe and effective service provision.

Staff did not fully assess, plan, deliver or review patients’ needs in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice. Staff did not work together or with others effectively and appropriately to provide continuity of care.

Staff cared for patients in a way that met their expectations and respected their privacy and dignity. There was a culture which lacked kindness and respect to staff.

The lack of effective systems to assess people’s needs meant services were not person centred. The lack of required information meant people’s needs could not be safely or effectively met. Systems in place to provide feedback were in another company name which made it difficult for people to effectively provide feedback. An inability to provide feedback meant peoples’ complaints about their care and treatment may not be identified and appropriate actions undertaken. Staff made limited adjustments when they could.

Managers and leaders were not caring and compassionate and did not have the skills and abilities to run the service. Managers did not promote a positive and supportive culture. Staff did not feel respected, supported or valued. There were limited systems to manage performance, which were only used to address negative concerns. Risks were not always identified or escalated, and actions were not in place to reduce their impact.

However, we found staff had training opportunities, although in some cases staff were charged for training. The ambulance was clean and suitably equipped with maintenance arrangements in place.

At this assessment we identified breaches of regulations in relation to Safe Care and Treatment and, Good Governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Please note Health Tech Services Group Limited is the service registered with the Care Quality Commission. However, the service trades and operates as Care Safe, and we are addressing this separately.

Updated 2 March 2026

We assessed this service using our comprehensive methodology. We carried out an announced assessment on 21 and 30 April 2026. We gave the service notice that we were coming to inspect to ensure the service was open.

Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate. Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

This was the first assessment of Health Tech Group Limited patient transport which we rated as Inadequate

The service had a negative learning culture; employment and other arrangements made it difficult for both staff and patients to raise concerns. Staff did not always manage risks to patients and themselves. Not all staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff employment arrangements did not provide assurance for ongoing safe and effective service provision.

Staff did not fully assess, plan, deliver or review patients’ needs in line with legislation, company policy and current evidence-based good practice. Staff did not work together or with others effectively and appropriately to provide continuity of care.

Staff cared for patients in a way that met their expectations and respected their privacy and dignity. There was a culture which lacked kindness and respect to staff.

The lack of effective systems to assess people’s needs meant services were not person centred. The lack of required information meant people’s needs could not be safely or effectively met. Systems in place to provide feedback were in another company name which made it difficult for people to effectively provide feedback. An inability to provide feedback meant peoples complaints about their care and treatment may not be identified to the regulated provider and appropriate actions undertaken. Staff made limited adjustments when they could.

Managers and leaders were not caring and compassionate and did not have the skills and abilities to run the service. Managers did not promote a positive and supportive culture. Staff did not feel respected, supported or valued. There were limited systems to manage performance, which were only used to address negative concerns. Risks were not always identified or escalated, and actions were not in place to reduce their impact.

However, we found staff had training opportunities, although we saw examples where staff were charged for this. The ambulance was clean and suitably equipped with maintenance arrangements in place.

During the inspection, we visited Health Tech Services Group Limited Telford and spoke with 2 staff including the registered manager. Following our onsite inspection, we spoke with 7 staff and contacted 5 people who had used the service as patients. During our inspection, we reviewed 12 patient record forms who had been transported by Health Tech Services Group Limited.

Updated 21 November 2025

Date of Assessment: 13 November to 20 December 2025. The service is a domiciliary care agency providing personal care to older adultswith dementia and physical disabilities.

Care plans did not detail people’s full health diagnoses and personal information, this meant we could not be assured a responsive approach to people’s changing needs would be actioned. Risk assessments were generic and not person centred.

People were supported by enough staff who were safely recruited and well trained.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to maintain their independence as much as possible.

People’s individual communication needs were considered and included in care planning and staffing decisions. The provider welcomed feedback and listened to people’s views and acted on any feedback.

People’s care was planned around their individual needs.

People spoke positively about the care they received. People felt involved with the planning of their care. People knew how to raise concerns and felt these would be responded to. We received positive feedback about staff and the management team and people felt safe when receiving care and support.

The provider had established systems in place to provide oversight of the care provided. Action was taken to address any concerns and make improvements to people’s experience of care and the service. There was a culture of learning and compassion toward people in receipt of care