Private ambulance provider EMED Group has defended its ability to manage two new NHS patient transport contracts despite facing criticism for missed appointments and poor performance in Surrey.
The company will take over non-emergency patient transport services in Sussex and the Thames Valley from April 2025, replacing South Central Ambulance Service (SCAS). However, concerns have been raised following safety issues identified in its existing Surrey contract.
Concerns Over Patient Safety
In December 2024, Ashford and St Peter’s Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in Surrey reported safety concerns over EMED’s performance. It revealed that some kidney patients had missed vital dialysis appointments, prompting the trust to deploy its own additional ambulance to mitigate the issue.
Reports also suggested EMED consistently missed performance targets, leading to extended patient waiting times. The Health Service Journal previously highlighted these failures, and Surrey NHS managers confirmed the company remains under enhanced quality surveillance. However, they declined to provide current performance figures.
Despite this, EMED’s Sussex contract director, Jon Mawer, insisted the firm is prepared for the challenge:
“I’m not in a position to discuss Surrey. If there are challenges, we’ll be proactive… I feel at the moment we’re in a very good position… very high confidence.”
Mawer also stated that mentors from other parts of the company would help new staff transition into the service.
Multi-Million Pound NHS Contracts
Under the new agreements, EMED will receive £115 million over five years for services in Sussex, with an option to extend for another five years. Meanwhile, the contract for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, and parts of north-east Hampshire and west Surrey is worth £222 million over ten years.
SCAS, which previously operated these services, bid for the Thames Valley contract but was unsuccessful.
The decision to award the contract to a private provider has drawn criticism. Gary Palmer, regional organiser for the GMB union, warned against prioritising cost-cutting over patient care:
“What is annoying is that those same commissioners are now doing exactly the same – looking to find the cheapest bid possible. Once it goes into the private sector, it is going to be about shareholders’ profitability and not patient journeys and patient experiences.”
Lessons from the Past
Concerns over private ambulance providers are not new. In 2016, Coperforma, a previous private provider in Sussex, lost its contract and went into liquidation following widespread operational failures, leaving patients stranded at hospitals or at home.
Palmer estimated that the Coperforma collapse cost NHS commissioners up to £7 million.
EMED Defends Its Approach
Despite the criticism, EMED has rejected claims that it will cut services for profit. The company stated that it will:
- Reduce costs by minimising reliance on expensive subcontractors.
- Utilise an extensive fleet of national vehicles and staff.
- Improve efficiency by deploying vehicles closer to patient locations.
Mawer assured patients that the company would provide a “responsive and agile service”, ensuring patients reach vital hospital appointments and benefit from a dedicated hospital discharge service.
Oversight and Accountability
Both Sussex NHS commissioners and the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West NHS team have pledged to monitor service quality and ensure patient care is not compromised.
As EMED takes on these high-value NHS contracts, all eyes will be on whether it can deliver on its promises or repeat the failures seen in Surrey and previous private providers.
