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

This means that we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment this key question was not rated at this assessment the rating is Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect and involved in partners in their care.

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.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, but did not always respect their privacy and dignity. Staff treat colleagues from other organisation with kindness and respect.

We observed staff interacting well with patients and their families treating them with kindness and respect. People we spoke to told us that although the department was busy staff were approachable and took time to talk to them. Family members had told us staff were supportive and caring.

We saw respectful and professional interactions between staff members within the department and also with staff from other organisations, for example the ambulance service.

The service had an End of Life (EoL) and bereavement suite within the department. This allowed patients and families to have time together in a quiet and respectful environment.

Staff tried as much as possible to protect the privacy, dignity and confidentiality of patients. However, the layout of the department did not always support this. The streaming area became very crowded, conversations with the streaming triage nurse could be overheard and conversations with staff at reception. The ambulatory major’s area did not allow full privacy. Cubicles had been divided into two with screens which reduced patient confidentiality. There were plans to improve ambulatory majors as part of the department refurbishment plan.

We scored the service as 3. 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. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff provided regular care ‘rounding’ with patients throughout the department. The checks looked at pain, personal needs, comfort, toileting and repositioning. We observed rounding being completed and documented.

Staff ensured patients had access to food and drink, ensuring any special dietary requirement were catered for. Where necessary staff would make referrals to specialist teams if patients were having difficulty swallowing or eating food. The waiting room had access to vending machines and regular drinks were provided by the house-keeping. Multi-faith chaplaincy service were available to support patients and their families should they request it. There was also a multifaith room within the hospital should anyone need to pray or have a quiet time of reflection.

All patients wore named wristbands which had colored clips on them. Red indicated allergy, blue indicated a patient who lived with dementia and yellow indicated a falls risk. However, these clips although present were not clearly visible.

Patients with long-term medical conditions could register for a ‘hospital passport’. This would inform staff of any additional requirements needed. Staff we spoke used the passports to aid them with assessing people and making adjustments where needed. Children with hospital passports could be referred directly to inpatient wards to support individual needs.

Staff received training in dementia, learning difficulties and autism which increased staff awareness of the adaptations required in communication styles when assessing patients.

Within children’s ED there were toys and equipment for children that were neurodivergent. A learning disabilities nurse was available for help and advice and to review patients if needed.

Staff had access to interpreters when English was not the patients first language. We did not observe any other communication aids within ED. In children’s ED we saw picture communication aids.

We observed patients coming into the department who lacked capacity. Staff carried out professional discussions with family and carers which resulted in a best interest decisions around care and treatment. We also saw medical staff respecting the wishes of a patients when presented with a completed Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form on arrival within the department.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients and their families told us that staff took time to talk and listen to them. Even though the department was busy, they did not feel staff rushed them and they felt they were involved in the care they received. Discussions with patients and families were documented in the patient care records we reviewed.

Capacity assessments were completed in the records we reviewed. We observed the wishes of a patient, who lacked capacity, being respected by medical staff acknowledging what had been documented on their completed ReSPECT form. This allowed the person who lacked capacity to still have choice and control around their care and treatment.
Hospital passports enabled patients who struggled communicating to have control and choice when it came to care and treatments enabling staff to make reasonable adjustments when necessary.

The department encouraged patients, where possible and clinically appropriate, to mobilise. We observed physiotherapists within the department assisting people to use mobility aids to improve independence and control when moving around the department, for example to use the toilet.

Teams on Frailty S:DEC arranged packages of care for when patients were discharged. This encouraged independence, choice and control for the patient and avoided unnecessary hospital admission promoting a more positive recovery.

We scored the service as 2. 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.

Patients told us that although they may experience long wait times, staff were approachable and they felt listened to and cared for. However, they did feel communication regarding waiting times could be better.

Patient care records reviewed showed falls assessments were recorded, patients had been given yellow socks and blankets to alert staff to the patients’ potential fall risk. Assessments for pressure sores were completed as were frailty scores.

Although care rounding was seen to be undertaken and documented we observed call bells out of reach and patients in pain. We observed long waits for patients to receive pain relief. Observations were not always completed in line with the services policies, and we were not assured staff were responding to changes in patients’ conditions.

Patients suffering from mental health conditions received assessment from the Mental Health Liaison Team (MHLT) in line with performance target. The service required patients to be seen by MHLT within an hour of arrival in the department and have a full assessment completed within 4 hours. There were 1523 referrals made to the MHLT in the year 2025 to 2026. Of these, 125 had breached the 1-hour response time which was in line with the compliance target of 90%.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff we spoke to felt supported in their role and were treated fairly and equitably within the department. However, the recent staff survey suggested that not all staff felt the same, UEC scored below the trust average in all elements of the survey.

Staff were split into teams and were allocated a manager/team leader who they could approach for any personal issues, training, annual leave or any other concerns or issues they may have.

Staff had access to a staff room where they can take their breaks and eat. Staff told us they often missed breaks when the department was busy but had regular days off as part of a staff rota system.

Staff had access to support initiatives for example: Employee Assistance Program (EAP), occupational health, clinical psychology and Mental Health (MH) first aiders. There was a MH first aider within the ED department.

Flexible working patterns could be arranged to accommodate individual personal circumstances. The service made reasonable adjustments for staff. For example, staff with neurodiversity could work within the same area to allow for consistency and routine. Lighter duties would be accommodated for staff returning to work from injury or ill health.
Staff had access to various staff networks which included LGBTQ and allies, Race, Ethnicity And Cultural Heritage (REACH), Spirituality Network and Disability Staff Network. This enabled staff to support each other and share life experiences.

Staff meetings were held via teams each month. Regular newsletters were sent out to staff from the patient safety team to promote learning. The ECAM senior leadership team also send out staff newsletters to include information around leadership updates, recognition of staff and teams successes and key messages from any executive meetings.

Staff told us they felt safe coming to work and there was a positive inclusive culture. There had been no concerns raised around bullying, sexual safety or inappropriate behaviours.

Staff development was discussed at appraisals and staff we spoke to said there were development opportunities available if they wanted them. The service provided a comprehensive Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Programme to support clinical competence to enhance staff confidence and patient outcomes.