G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited provides patient transport services.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the announced part of the inspection on 3 October 2017, along with an unannounced visit to the provider on 17 October 2017.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led?

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The main service provided by this service was patient transport services. Where our findings on G4S Facilities Management (UK) Limited, for example, management arrangements, also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the patient transport services core service.

Services we do not rate

We regulate independent ambulance services but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate them. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• We observed call handlers consistently dealing with callers in a respectful, compassionate, and caring way.

• Call handlers followed the provider’s transport eligibility criteria at all times. If callers did not meet the eligibility criteria, call handlers provided them with a range of alternative pathways to source transportation.

• Staff we spoke with universally agreed that the management structure and new managing director was having a positive impact on the service.

• The provider had clear systems for responding to concerns and complaints and shared learning with staff to minimize events in the future.

• We inspected a number of vehicles at all the locations we visited and found vehicles to be visibly clean, maintenance was carried out in line with service schedules, and vehicles used for their intended purpose.

• Patients we spoke with told us they felt safe in the service saying staff were kind, helpful and respected their needs at all times.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

• Training rates fell below the providers expected compliance rates.The provider had an action plan in place to address any shortfalls, scrutinised by its senior leadership and governance team.

• The provider’s contracts have a performance regime set by NHS commissioners, the performance is bench marked against various key performance indicators, for example journeys times. Combined across all contracts and performance regimes, the provider has shown performance improvement within its contracts. However, current performance is 84% against targets of between 90% and 95%. The provider has plans in place to monitor and improve on performance.

• We spoke with a number of staff at various locations and found some had limited knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act and duty of candour.

Following this inspection, we issued the provider with two requirement notices that affected the safe and effective domains. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult 

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals, on behalf of the Chief Inspector of Hospitals