Agenda item

This report provides Members with an update on the provision of Patient Transport Services in Kent and Medway.

Discussion

The Accountable / Chief Officer for NHS West Kent Clinical Commissioning Group introduced the report. The new transport provider, G4S, had taken over the contract from NSL. The new contract commenced on 1 July 2016 and had followed a robust procurement progress, which had considered lessons learned from the previous contract. Mobilisation on the first day of the new contract had gone well, with the call centre being able to meet the demand. The service required further improvement, but it was considered that the service at launch was already better than that provided by the previous contractor.

The target for patient pick up from hospital under the new contract was one hour, compared to three hours under the old contract. Performance standards were not yet being met but the quality of the service was improving each month. There had been initial difficulties in relation to the transport of renal patients. This had been addressed within the last month. There were still patients who were not being collected on time and some delays in discharge from hospital. Hospitals had more confidence in the service provided, with some starting to stand down their own ambulances as a result.

The relationships between hospital trusts and G4S were generally much better than they had been under the previous provider and complaint numbers had dropped month on month. No complaints from MPs had yet been received in relation to the new provider. Review of performance data had been built into the contract, with no significant issues having been identified during the review undertaken after three months of the new contract.

The Committee raised a number of points and questions as follows:

Transport to London Hospitals: In response to a Member question, the Accountable Officer advised that patient transport services had previously been commissioned by the London hospital trusts to collect patients from within Kent and Medway and take them to London hospitals. This was due to change so that the Kent and Medway transport provision would collect patients travelling to London hospitals. This was because the previous provision had been poor.

Performance data and complaints: A Member asked whether there was any performance data in relation to the new contract available for the Committee to review and what the nature was of complaints received so far. Complaints tended to focus on delays in being picked up or taken home. Three months of performance data was available but it would not be made publically available at this stage as it was considered that a longer time period was required to make analysis of the data meaningful. It was proposed that data would be released once six months worth was available. The Committee agreed that a written update on the performance data should be provided ahead of a possible update being presented to the Committee.

Care Quality Commission Inspections – The Accountable Officer advised that the Care Quality Commission would inspect the patient transport service at some point. It was not known when this would be, but it was likely that it would be at least one year into the new contract.

Demographic Challenges: A Member asked how the new contract, which was for a six year period, would be able to cope with the forecast increases in population, particularly amongst those aged over 65 and questioned what size of fleet would be provided under the contract. It was not possible to provide fleet size information at the meeting. The tender had not specified a number of vehicles that had to be provided, but it had accounted for projected population growth.

Staffing and Joint Working: In response to a question that asked what the reaction of staff had been to the new contract and whether there were plans to work with patient transport providers in other areas, there had been no concerns raised directly by staff or by trade unions. G4S had brought in a significant number of additional staff as well as staff having transferred from the previous provider. Engagement was due to take place with patient groups in the New Year to ascertain what patients thought of the new service. Engagement would continue throughout the contract. G4S provided other patient transport services but it was not considered that there would be synergies with these or with contracts delivered by other providers given the size of Kent and Medway and because of the geographies of transport routes.

Contract Termination: The Accountable Officer advised that the contract contained two ways in which it could be terminated. For a significant contract breach, termination could be immediate. Otherwise, either party could give 12 months notice. Performance metrics within the previous contract with NSL had not been as tightly defined as they needed to be. Due to this and the contract having only been for three years, it would only have been possible to terminate the contract around six months early. Performance management under the G4S contract was more stringent, which would enable, should the need arise, for a decision to be made sooner to terminate the contract.

Working relationship with G4S: The Accountable Officer said that there had been transparency in the working relationship with G4S, with an open book relationship having been adopted. They had been responsive in dealing with issues.

Bad weather contingency plans: In response to a Member question about contingency plans, it was confirmed that the patient transport service had some specialist vehicles for bad weather and that contingency plans were linked to the cold weather plans of individual trusts. Use could be made of minicabs if necessary.

Decision

The Committee considered and commented on the update provided and requested that a written update on the performance of G4S be circulated to the Committee in June 2017, once adequate performance data was available and that a further update may be requested at a Committee meeting following this.