Queens Urgent Treatment Centre

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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs, and patients were able to easily access the service. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good, this was because at the previous assessment the service was not meeting its 4-hour target as agreed with the commissioners to treat and discharge patients. At this assessment we found they were meeting and exceeding the 4 hours target of 95%.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The organisation reviewed patient feedback as part of their quality and safety meetings and took action to respond to the findings. The organisation was actively involved with the local integrated care board, where they worked with other services to recognise and improve the appropriate local health inequalities.

All patients could walk into the service 24 hours a day, and did not need to book an appointment, and were seen on a first come first served basis unless prioritised as having more urgent needs. The service had a system in place to facilitate prioritisation according to clinical need where more serious cases or young children could be prioritised as they arrived.

At the initial assessment, clinical staff would direct them to the appropriate service, with the aid of clinical guidelines. The patient record system also contained prompts to ensure patients’ needs were quickly met. For example, for patients with sickle cell disease, a prompt could be displayed to advise they needed to go straight to the main ED.

The service had a system in place for when patients did not wait to be seen following their initial assessment. The clinician would call them three times at 10-minute intervals. If they still had not arrived, they called the patient on their phone. If they still could not find them or make contact, a doctor reviewed their notes and if no concerns, the doctor would leave a message with advice and instructions for when to seek further help. If they had concerns, they would arrange for a patient welfare check by the ambulance service.

A 24-hour operational team had been established following a restructuring initiative, enabling immediate resolution of rota-related issues and ensuring consistent staffing coverage to ensure people’s needs were met.

The organisation had engaged an independent patient survey in August 2024, this demonstrated improvements. For example, 94% of patients stated they had enough time to discuss their condition or symptoms with a member of staff, and 85% understood the explanation of their condition and treatment reached. In addition, 90% of patients reported staff listened to them.

The UTC had a dedicated service for patients who had required mental health treatment.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Patients were referred to secondary care services and to the ED. The patient’s GP was informed of any patient consultations carried out by the service.

Staff described a good working relationship with the hospital trust.

The service supplied appropriate information, in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Interpreters and support for patients with language barriers were available. Hearing loops were available for patients whose hearing was impaired.

The service had systems and policies in place to protect and share patients’ data. Role based access controls restricted patient information to staff dependent upon their responsibilities. Audit logs were reviewed to monitor access and detect inappropriate usage. Most staff had completed mandatory training on information governance and confidentiality.

The service had engaged an independent patient survey in August 2024, this demonstrated 85% of patients understood the explanation of their condition and treatment reached.

The organisation took complaints and concerns seriously and responded to them appropriately to improve the quality of care.

The service had an effective system in place to monitor, investigate, respond and learn from complaints. Complaints were monitored by the governance committee. The patients’ complaints and compliments were shared with staff to enable learning. The organisation shared with staff the top complaints and feedback and what action they were taking. Reminders were continuously being sent to the whole organisation with regards to the top complaints through Safety Matters Newsletter, CEO weekly update and individual staff management process. In alignment with the Patient Safety Incident Response Framework (PSIRF), all complaints were reviewed at a weekly learning panel to identify any potential safety events early in the process.

The organisation had carried out an annual review of complaints in May 2025, this found 30% of the provider’s complaints related to Queens hospital. The two main subjects of patients’ complaints were patient perceived concerns about clinical treatment and staff attitude (communication). The organisation found most concerns about clinical treatments were not upheld. The review also found the number of complaints had significantly reduced, for example in 2022/2023, 593 complaints were made and in 2024/2025, 95 complaints were made.

All complaints were acknowledged within target timescales. Any overdue complaints were risk stratified by the governance team to ensure that all serious incidents or patient safety events were identified.

The service aimed to make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed promptly, whilst supporting patients

At the previous assessment, the organisation was not meeting its four-hour target as agreed with the commissioners, which had been consistently under 95% for the past six months. At this assessment we found the organisation was meeting and exceeding both its initial patient assessment within 15 minutes of arrival and 4-hour treatment and discharge targets of 99% and 98% respectively for the past three months.

The service operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Patients could access the service either as a walk in-patient, via the NHS 111 service or by referral from a healthcare professional. Patients did not need to book an appointment.

Patients were generally seen on a first come first served basis, although the service had a system in place to facilitate prioritisation according to clinical need where more serious cases or young children could be prioritised as they arrived. The reception staff had a list of emergency criteria they used to alert the clinical staff if a patient had an urgent need. The criteria included guidance on sepsis and the symptoms that would prompt an urgent response.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information and monitored peoples experience and outcomes to ensure people who were most likely to experience inequality needs were recognised and met.

The organisation listened to patient feedback and responded to their needs removing the main barrier of excessive waiting times for all patients. Patients who had specific disability needs were supported throughout their journey at the service.

The organisation had looked at developments with the trust to enable patients who presented with mental health concerns to be triaged at the UTC.

The leaders monitored patient flow in the service, to help ensure patients were seen promptly. Over 99% of patients were seen for their initial assessment within 15 minutes and over 98% treated and discharged from the service in 4 hours.

The organisation had engaged an independent patient survey in August 2024, this demonstrated 82% had confidence and trust in the health professional and 55% stated their overall experience was good. In March 2025 patients completed 145 feedback cards all stated they were either likely or very likely to recommend the service, which demonstrates that the organisation had met the benchmark of patient expectations.

Patients were supported to make informed decisions about their future care and treatment.

There were arrangements and systems in place to support staff to respond to patients with specific health care needs, such as end-of-life care.

The organisation had engaged an independent patient survey in August 2024, this demonstrated 64% of patients were given information for their condition at home, 100% understood the information, 96% were able to care for their condition at home, and 76% were told who to contact if worried about their health.