Ealing Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last assessment, we rated this key question Good. At this assessment, the rating remained ‘Good’. This meant patients felt well-supported, cared for, and were generally treated with dignity and respect.

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion but did not always respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Almost all the patients we met said staff treated them well. Staff were kind and acted with respect in the interactions we observed. Most patients had their privacy and dignity maintained, however, at times patient’s privacy was not always maintained. In some of the temporary escalation (TES) areas we observed staff treated patients with kindness but their privacy and dignity was not always maintained due to the lack of privacy screens when being cared for in the corridor. However, in response to staff feedback the 5 bedded cohort area had had curtains fitted, which acted as partitions for improved patient privacy.

Staff were respectful, spoke in a kind and caring manner and assisted patients as necessary. We observed a patient wanting to leave and getting agitated, staff were responsive and caring, whilst arranging medications to facilitate the patient’s discharge. The friends and families test data for June 2025 were unavailable due to the number of patients responding. In July 2025, data showed that 77% of people had a positive experience in the department. However, the department’s response rate was low and below the national average response rate of 16%. We were told the reason for the low response rates to the friends and family test was due to the implementation of this by the new provider. Recent data demonstrated an improvement in the feedback rates.

We observed trust staff working collaboratively with staff from other organisations, including the ambulance, speaking in a respectful manner.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patients assessed by the rapid access team (RAT), had a plan of care developed, tests identified, ensuring any immediate needs such as pain relief or time-critical medication, were identified and administered.

There were a range of meetings that took place daily to discuss information such as bed numbers, breaches, staffing etc. These included shift handovers, nursing and medical huddles where specific issues were discussed, including patient numbers and staffing, with issues escalated to the cross-site bed meetings that took place three times a day. Bed meeting discussed a range of issues including staffing, patient numbers, waiting times and breaches. Concerns raised at this meeting were escalated to tactical ‘silver command’ and strategic ‘gold command’ meetings that took place daily. Plans were developed to address issues escalated such as bed capacity, staffing levels and patient flow. Senior leaders worked closely with other partners such as social services, the ambulance service and mental health services. For example, we observed plans being made to ensure the needs of a CAMHs patient who had been in the department for a significant period of time, were met.

The patients we spoke with all knew how to call for help. There was some inconsistency in the provision of buzzers, for example we observed 2 patients, including a patient in the ‘Cohort’ who had been left without a buzzer with no reliable way of calling for help.

Between the hours 14.00 and 22.00 there was an allocated ED nurse whose sole responsibility was to ensure patients received their medication in a timely manner. This initiative had been implemented following staff feedback that due to the demand in the department at certain times, time critical and other medication could be delayed or doses missed due to staff availability.

One of the top risks identified by ED staff, was the length of stay for mental health and medical patients. There was an escalation process in place. However, it was acknowledged that mental health patients could often be difficult to place due to the need for specialist beds. To ensure their needs were met while in the department, a range of actions had been taken including facilities to deliver personal care being introduced. Nurses had also been provided with specific mental health training to improve their skills, knowledge and confidence in delivering care to these patients. There were plans in place to recruit two permanent mental health nurses to the ED. These posts will be part of the ED team complement and will be employed by the trust. The trust also had close relationships with mental health trust teams supporting the department, who provided advice and input into the patient’s care when needed.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Local senior staff demonstrated a commitment to staff well-being and actively supported the delivery of person-centred care. A culture of teamwork and support was evident across all levels of staff, contributing to a welcoming and collaborative environment. Staff consistently described the support they received from colleagues as positive and inclusive. Senior nurses provided both professional and pastoral support to nursing staff, reinforcing a culture of care and respect. All staff we spoke with reported feeling well supported, and they consistently upheld internal professional standards in both their attitudes and practice.

Senior ED staff reported staff ‘burnout’ was an issue and contributing factors to this included intensity of patient flow through the ED. The latest staff survey showed 44.2% of ED staff reported they often felt tired and 35% reported they felt a ‘high degree’ of burnout with 39.2% reporting they always felt worn out at the end of their working day. Staff told us they had systems in place to raise concerns about nurse-to-patient ratios, capacity pressures, and the frequency of patients presenting with mental health needs to their managers, as these factors had an impact on staff morale. There were initiatives to help boost staff morale by the provision of improved areas for staff to take their breaks in. However, as these initiatives had been implemented recently their impact on staff morale had not yet been measured.

We were told that the introduction of body-worn cameras was in response to concerns raised by staff in the recent staff survey. These were worn by triage staff and the nurse in charge, in line with trust policies and procedures. Security staff also had body cameras and used these in line with their employer’s own protocols.