The Queen Elizabeth 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

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.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating is requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff mostly treated people with kindness and respect. However, we observed a patient in a single occupancy room calling for help. Staff spoke loudly and abruptly from outside the room “what do you want?” and did not enter. Personal protective equipment was required and was available to protect staff, but this was not used. The patients’ needs were not identified in a dignified way. Care provision was delayed. There was a lack of empathy. We reported this to the nurse in charge and were assured a professional conversation would take place with the staff concerned to address the concerns.

During the assessment, we spoke with 10 patients who shared their experiences of care. Many commented that staff appeared busy but were trying their best to support them. However, some patients noted that they occasionally had to wait for their needs to be met.

In the 2024 National Inpatient Survey, overall patient experience was rated 7 out of 10. The results were in line with those of similar services across England. Leaders told us of action plans to improve discharge communication, fundamentals of care and ensure there were enough nurses to meet patients needs. Staff we spoke to within the division were not aware of actions to improve survey results.

We observed staff in theatre deliver care in a dignified and respectful way.

We saw staff explaining things to patients in a way they could understand. Staff involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment. Patient’s family and carers told us visiting times were flexible.

Staff mostly kept patient records secure. However, we observed occasions where medical records were left unattended. There was a risk of unauthorised access to patients’ private medical information.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Most people we spoke with told us the service took account of their individual needs and preferences. We saw in patient records that people’s needs and preferences were reflected in plans for patient care.

We observed that staff treated people as individuals, considering any relevant protected equality characteristics. People’s personal, cultural, social, and religious needs were understood.

The service had systems such as translation services to support communication and choice.

Staff were observed providing additional time, supporting a non‑verbal patient with a learning disability in a quiet area.

Staff were observed making adjustments to allow a relative to remain with a patient living with dementia while they waited for surgery.

Staff utilised private rooms to discuss sensitive details or for breaking bad news.

The hospital had a chaplaincy service which staff could access to support patients and their relatives.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff made sure patients and those close to them understood their care and treatment. Patients we spoke with during our assessment understood their treatment plans. Patients were involved in decision making about their care.

Staff talked with patients, families and carers in a way they could understand. Staff told us they had access to communication aids and provided printed information where necessary.

We observed appropriate equipment such as walking sticks and walking frames available to help staff promote independence and mobility.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service did not ensure patient risk assessments were consistently completed and reflective of patients’ current needs. In 6 of 10 reviewed patient records risk assessments were incomplete. This meant that staff did not always have an accurate understanding of an individual’s risk, potentially limiting their ability to respond effectively to patient needs.

Staff understood the importance of identifying patient needs, views and wishes and aimed to prioritise this. Staff told us they worked to meet patients’ needs but staffing levels sometimes made this difficult.

Patients we spoke to told us they could access their call bell and use it to alert staff. Staff did not always respond promptly to people’s needs. We observed delays in staff responding to patient call bells.

We observed ‘nurse rounding,’ a system whereby staff interact with patients to ensure any immediate needs were met. Trust audit data showed good compliance with ‘nurses rounding’ across the surgical division.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Leaders told us they had systems to support staff wellbeing and these were underpinned by policies and procedures such as the attendance management policy and flexible work policy. However, staff told us managers did not follow these policies consistently.

Theatre staff described uncertainty within the department following the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) report into general surgery at the trust. Staff told us changes within leadership structure, reporting lines and uncertainty about the future of the service had a negative impact on their wellbeing. We spoke to staff due to start work within the general surgery team who reported they felt apprehensive and anxious. They were unaware of support available to them or of the published action plan to address the RCS findings.

Staff from the Day Surgery Unit (DSU) theatres told us they had raised workplace cultural concerns and listening groups had been completed as a result. However, they were unaware of changes that had occurred as a result and felt the concerns remained.

Staff told us that following reported incidents of workplace abuse, such as racism and homophobia, managers did not offer support or provide them with investigation feedback. They told us this resulted in them being unlikely to report incidents in the future.

The trusts uniform policy was under review but supported staff with cultural and religious needs by allowing appropriate and respectful adjustments.

The trust had a reward and recognition programme, the QEH Awards, data showed that many individuals and teams from the surgical division were nominated and presented with awards in 2025.

Staff in the theatre department told us they had access to mental health first aiders, however, this service was not known by other staff groups in the division.