Northwick Park Hospital

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

This was an announced focused follow-up assessment for this service. At our last assessment we rated this key question as requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

The service provided information in a variety of ways that met the needs of the local population. Improved systems and staff awareness allowed patients to receive information in a way that they understood. This meant they could make informed decisions about their care and treatment.

The service had established pathways to manage flow through the department and address attendances where community services may be more suitable. We saw that this supported patients to receive appropriate care for their individual needs

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service ensured patients had access to appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that met their individual needs. Information leaflets covering a wide range of conditions and treatments were readily available throughout the department and were available in multiple languages commonly spoken in the local community, such as Arabic and Polish. QR codes directed patients to access information in 104 languages and staff had options to download or print information in a variety of formats to suit patients’ needs.

We observed several portable tablets across the department used for real-time translation support. Staff could also access face-to-face interpreters including British Sign Language (BSL) and many staff members spoke languages that reflected the local population. This facilitated patients receiving information in a format or language that met their individual needs.

Clear information about waiting times was provided. In the main waiting area, television screens displayed waiting times along with health information and were refreshed every 2 minutes. In the paediatric ED, a whiteboard was manually updated every 2 hours to ensure families remained updated.

To ensure correct information, posters were only allowed in designated areas and had to be approved by the matron before they could be displayed. This stopped key information, such as posters which informed about the option to request a chaperone, from being overlooked because of overcrowded information displays.

Patients and carers told us they had been told about their treatment plans in a way that they understood. They told us they knew what to expect next, the expected waiting time and possible next steps. This meant people were kept up to date in a way they could understand.

We observed that digital records were secure and accessed by staff using individual logins. Staff logged off and secured workstations when not in use. This ensured patient information remained secure and confidential.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access care, treatment and support in a timely and equitable manner. Data between July 2025 and June 2026 showed that an average 80% of patients arriving by ambulance were handed over within 30 minutes. 98.2% were handed over within 60 minutes which was above the NHS target of 95%.

The ED flow coordinator told us that the trust provided consultant support to the London Ambulance Service North-West London hub which ambulance crews could contact to seek senior clinical advice when conveying a patient to hospital may not be required. This helped ensure that people, particularly older patients, could avoid unnecessary attendance at ED where community-based care was more appropriate. This model aimed to help to reduce avoidable delays and support access to the right care at the right time.

There were systems in place to maintain oversight of patient flow. A real-time dashboard provided up to date information on patient numbers in each ED area, longest waiters and bed availability across the hospital. Between January 2026 and June 2026 8.6% of patients waited in the department longer than 12 hours. Senior ED and site staff met at 10 scheduled points through the day to review this data and take early action to reduce the risk of excessive waits. When urgent action was needed outside these this was escalated to the senior floor walker for action.

The trust had developed pathways to support timely discharge for people who were medically fit to leave hospital. Patients could be discharged from ED and receive community physiotherapy assessment within 2 hours of arriving at home. Suitable patients were also transferred to the discharge lounge, where staff coordinated transport, social and home care packages. These processes helped the flow of patients out of ED and to ensure that patients were not experiencing delays leaving the department waiting for community support services.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.