Archived: Health Tech Services Group Limited

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Inadequate. This meant people’s needs were not always met. This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

We found it wasn’t easy for people to share feedback on their care, although staff were incentivised to get compliments, we found systems to provide feedback difficult to navigate. The company was registered under a different trading name, and it was not obvious to people using the service what the name of the company was regulated under should they wish to raise concerns.

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 provider did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. The service used the initial assessment of needs with limited care instructions identified. There was no consideration given to patients who had Dementia or Learning Disability for example and how their needs and preferences would be supported. The assessment of need did not fully reflect people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Records showed people completed an initial assessment of their requirements, but questions included insufficient information to have assurance their needs would be fully identified and met.

The service had made some reasonable adjustments where necessary, for example a bariatric trolley and bariatric wheelchair. The initial assessment could be changed to their required language. No other information was available in other languages or in a format suitable for people with a learning disability.

There were significant shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not joined up, or supported continuity.

Systems and processes did not support continuity of care. Information about people who used the service was insufficient for staff to understand their needs. The registered manager said they provided similar arrangements to a taxi service and saw no requirement for additional information other than requirements of the transportation. There was a lack of understanding of the requirements of a regulated ambulance service and how this differed from a taxi service. There was no continuity in people’s care and treatment because systems did not enable services to be joined up by providing information to other services when required.

People were not always in control of planning their care and support. The service did not assess if people needed help with planning their care or assess the suitability of the representative.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service used closed-circuit television (CCTV), however there was no signage within the office informing people CCTV was in use. We noticed a camera on day 2 of our assessment, that visual and sound recording was being captured in the office where we were based using CCTV. We requested recordings of our visits were deleted but were told by the registered manager only 7 days of recordings could be deleted. The provider was not operating in line with its CCTV policy. Information within the CCTV policy identified 30 days of recording could be stored and deleted, the application being used confirmed this information. The service had the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) information checklist which identified: Our organisation knows how to respond to individuals making requests for copies of their own images, or for images to be erased or restricted. If unsure the controller knows to seek advice and guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as soon as a request is made. We found the organisation was not compliant with this.

The service had valid certificates for Data Protection, Certificate of assurance – complies with the requirements of the essentials cyber essentials scheme, Data security and protection toolkit 5/5/2026 to 30/6/2027 and ISO Certification Limited to the following management systems, standards and guidelines:- The provision of technology-enabled healthcare services, including door-to-door nonemergency medical transport, homebased assessments, remote patient monitoring, diagnostics, and healthcare training for corporate and self-paying clients across the UK.

Information provided by the manager confirmed Health Tech Services Group complied with the NHS Accessible Information Standard (SCCI1605) to ensure all patients, their representatives and staff could communicate effectively and understood the information shared with them. However, we found whilst the patient record included a field for “language” to enable the person to change the language no other information was provided in other languages nor were translation services available. There were no other arrangements for people who may have a learning disability for example easy read documents.

Staff received online mandatory training in Learning Disability Awareness, Equality and Diversity, and The Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, although we could not identify what modules the training covered as this was issued under a Health Tech Services certificate.

It was difficult for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service had systems in place to collect patient feedback, which included both compliments and complaints. However, the system referred to a different trading name to the registered organisation. This meant complaints were not always identifiable as relating to the registered organisation. Should a potential patient wish to research the company's reputation or report concerns to the Care Quality Commission, they may struggle to do so.

We were told the service had received 4 complaints in the last 12 months. We saw the complaints had been responded to in a timely manner and company policy was followed. No complaints had been referred to the Ombudsman. These were usually financial complaints where a person using the service had cancelled, unable to be transported, driver late and had been charged for when they had not taken place. We saw evidence that staff were required to pay when a complaint was upheld around a driver being late and patient transport cancelled.

We did not see learning from complaints and concerns; this was not seen as an opportunity for improvement and staff could not give examples of how they incorporated learning into daily practice. The provider responded to complaints, but people were not kept informed about how their feedback was acted on. Where improvements were required as a result, people did not have the opportunity to be involved in shaping the solutions and measuring the impact.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

When asked the service could not provide an example of when they have used people’s feedback and other evidence to actively seek to improve access for people more likely to experience barriers or delays in accessing their care.

People did not have equal access to care, treatment and support because the provider did not comply with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, considering the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments. We saw evidence of this by the means of not supporting people who were known to have mental health difficulties. The provider did not prioritise, allocate resources and opportunities as needed to tackle inequalities and achieve equity of access. We also saw evidence of where the patient details taken had not highlighted the requirement of a stretcher, and services were declined. The service monitored the number of requests for transportation which were declined by patients due to not needing the transport or due to the ambulance being late and appointment time missed.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

The provider had not undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage. We saw evidence the provider did not comply with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes.

Leaders and staff were not alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services, whether from wider society, organisational processes and culture or from individuals. They did not proactively seek out ways to address these barriers to improve people’s experience, act on information about people's experiences and outcomes and allocate resources and opportunities to achieve equity. We were told and saw evidence of people with protected characteristics being refused service on the grounds of their protected characteristic. It is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 to refuse transport due to a mental health condition and discriminatory to exclude people without a comprehensive assessment of need taking place.

The service stated they had supported people with a learning disability to an event, but they were unable to give any further details on this, so we were unable to assess if they had any control over the planning of their support or whether the service had provided understandable information to this group of people with protected characteristics.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights, although when asked staff could not give examples of their understanding of this or when they may have implemented the training.

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.