During an assessment of Patient transport services
We commenced a fully comprehensive assessment of EMED Sussex on 11 November 2025. Our assessment was in response to information of concern received since their registration in July 2025.
This is the first time we have assessed and rated this service. We assessed patient transport services using our comprehensive assessment methodology.
We assessed all key questions and all quality statements.
We rated patient transport services as requires improvement.
We identified a breach of regulations in safe care and treatment and good governance.
EMED Sussex is an independent ambulance service delivering non‑emergency patient transport services (NEPTS) across Sussex. The provider assumed responsibility for the county‑wide contract in April 2025 and operates from 4 bases. Taking on the service required significant organisational change, including the integration of Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)-transferred staff, 7 third‑party suppliers and multiple systems, which created early operational challenges. The provider remained within their stabilisation period at the time of our inspection.
We found weaknesses in capacity, planning and scheduling, including delays, cancellations, aborted journeys and gaps in data oversight. This affected timely transport for people with time‑critical needs which increased risks to patient safety.
Staff did not consistently plan or coordinate care to support continuity, particularly for frequent users such as people attending time‑critical renal dialysis or people living with dementia.
The service did not consistently deliver care that reflected what mattered to people. Journey planning did not reliably take account of individual needs, vulnerabilities or preferences, and people were not always kept informed when journeys were delayed or changed. Patients described unreliable transport arrangements that led to late or missed treatment and long waits to return home when unwell or distressed.
The service did not always promote people’s independence, choice and control. Operational practices often prioritised efficiency over personalised care, negatively affecting dignity, wellbeing and independence. The provider also did not consistently work effectively with partner organisations, with poor communication and booking errors contributing to poor performance against key timeliness targets.
Staff did not always identify, grade or report patient safety incidents appropriately. They did not consistently recognise time‑critical delays and incidents involving psychological harm.
Leadership capacity was challenged during the transition into the contract, mitigations during the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (TUPE) process were insufficient, and Freedom to Speak Up and workforce equality arrangements were not yet well embedded.
The provider did not have effective systems of accountability to monitor quality, safety, performance or risk. Governance arrangements were underdeveloped, the risk register did not include key service risks, and leaders lacked clear oversight of subcontracted activity. Leaders recognised the scale and complexity of taking on the contract and acknowledged that further work was needed to embed consistent processes, strengthen performance oversight and improve staff and people’s experience.
However, staff treated people with kindness, dignity and compassion, responded well to people’s immediate needs, and used communication aids appropriately. Vehicles and equipment were well maintained, infection prevention and control practices were mostly followed, safeguarding arrangements were in place, and medicines and oxygen were managed safely. Leaders had articulated a shared vision and engaged constructively with commissioners and partners, and demonstrated a commitment to learning and improvement, although many initiatives were still at an early stage.