- NHS hospital
Newham University Hospital
Assessment report published 17 July 2026
Contents
Ratings - Urgent and emergency services
Our view of the service
We carried out a responsive assessment of urgent and emergency care services at Newham University Hospital on 5 and 6 May 2026 due to identified risks and the length of time since the previous inspection. We rated the service as requires improvement.
Overall, we rated urgent and emergency care as requires improvement because people were not always kept safe and did not always receive care in a timely way. We found breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment and staffing. At the time of our inspection, the hospital was operating under significant operational pressure, including sustained crowding and limited inpatient bed capacity, which affected the delivery of timely care.
Risks to patient’s safety were increased by delays in triage and assessment and inconsistent completion of risk assessments and clinical documentation. People experienced prolonged waits, including long stays in the emergency department and clinical decision unit, and we saw corridor care during busy periods. These issues increased risks to dignity, privacy, and timely escalation of care, particularly for people with frailty, mental health needs or complex conditions.
Staff were caring, compassionate and committed to providing good care, and people generally spoke positively about how staff treated them. Safeguarding systems were in place and staff understood how to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns.
Staffing levels did not always meet demand, with high vacancy rates within the medical workforce and reliance on temporary staff. Medical staffing gaps and inconsistent senior decision-maker presence contributed to delays in assessment and flow. Although leaders had plans in place to improve workforce capacity and had begun reviews of staffing models, these were not yet fully embedded.
Leaders had a clear vision for improving urgent and emergency care and were working with system partners to improve flow. This included through mental health pathways, GP redirect schemes and same day emergency care. However, governance arrangements were not always effective in addressing long‑standing risks, including poor documentation, deteriorating patient processes and delays in care.
Following our inspection, leaders told us they had taken immediate action to strengthen oversight of clinical documentation, risk assessments and waiting area monitoring, and had plans to improve staffing oversight and patient flow. These actions were at an early stage and had not yet led to sustained improvement.
We have requested an action plan, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.
People's experience of this service
People consistently told us they were treated with kindness, respect and compassion by staff working in urgent and emergency care. Many people described staff as caring and supportive and said they felt listened to and reassured. This was consistent with our observations during the assessment.
However, people’s experience was affected by long waiting times, crowding and delays in assessment and treatment. Some people told us they waited a long time to be seen and were not always kept informed about how long they would need to wait or what would happen next. Although waiting times were displayed in waiting areas, these were not always clearly visible or kept up to date, which added to people’s frustration and anxiety.
Despite staff efforts, pressures on the service meant that people’s privacy and dignity were not always maintained. We observed the use of corridor care during busy periods. This meant some people were assessed or cared for in environments that did not support private conversations or personal space.