The Ipswich Hospital

Updated 18 February 2026

On 23 and 24 September 2025 we carried out an assessment of medical care (including older people’s) and urgent and emergency care. We carried out this assessment to review the progress made against the requirement notice that was served on the provider following the inspection in January 2020. We found the service had taken actions to address the requirement notice however, current performance demonstrated challenges with maintaining compliance in some areas.

The rating of medical care (including older people) and urgent and emergency care has been combined with the ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all the other services at The Ipswich Hospital. The rating of The Ipswich Hospital remains requires improvement.

In our assessment of medical care (including older people) services and urgent and emergency care, we found concerns which resulted in a breach of regulation in which we served a warning notice. We also found both services had not addressed all the concerns within the previous requirement notice from the January 2020 inspection.

At this assessment we identified breaches of regulations in relation to Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance for both services.

Updated 10 June 2025

On the 23 and 24 September 2025 we carried out an assessment of medical care (including older people). This was a responsive assessment due to concerns raised around pressure ulcer management, discharge processes and communication. In addition, it was to review the progress made against the requirement notice that was served on the provider following the inspection in January 2020. We inspected 19 quality statements across safe, responsive, and well-led key questions.

During our assessment we spoke with 46 staff, 20 patients and relatives using the service. People we spoke with felt staff were caring and worked well together to provide care and felt confident to raise concerns. Staff did not always complete risk assessments to mitigate risk for people they cared for. Staff did not always document mental capacity act assessments when caring for those who may lack capacity to consent or who are subject to restrictions on their liberty. Staff told us they were supported by their managers. However, low staffing impacted morale due to staff being asked to work in different areas. Nursing managers made sure staff received training to maintain high-quality care. However, medical staff were not compliant with mandatory training.

During our assessment, we found concerns which resulted in a breach of regulation in which we served a warning notice. We found breaches in consent, safe care and treatment, and good governance. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings.

In instances where CQC has decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.

Updated 10 June 2025

East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust was formed 1 July 2018 following the merger of Colchester Hospital University Foundation Trust and Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust. They provide hospital and community health services to almost 1 million people and are the largest NHS organisation in East Anglia, employing more than 12,000 staff. Emergency care is delivered at the Colchester and Ipswich sites.

The Urgent and Emergency department (UEC) at Ipswich Hospital consists of an adult emergency department with majors and minor’s cubicles, a resuscitation room, an ambulatory emergency care unit and paediatric emergency department. The department is open 24 hours a day,7 days a week.

We previously inspected in 2020 and found 6 breaches of regulations relating to safe care and treatment, staffing and good governance. We carried out an assessment of the urgent and emergency care on 23 and 24 September 2025. This was a responsive assessment. We reviewed 19 quality statements across safe, responsive and well-led. The service had improvements to make to ensure safe care and treatment and that good governance processes are being followed.

During our assessment we found concerns which resulted in a breach of regulation in which we served a warning notice. We found breaches in Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance.
The ratings for safe, responsive and well-led remained requires improvement. Due to the continued pressure, demand and acuity on the department leaders and staff were not always able to deliver good care and keep people safe.

Governance and risk management was not at a sufficient standard to manage the areas of risk identified specifically in relation to missed clinical observations and managing those patients at risk of deterioration. The service did not always monitor the outcomes of patients to ensure equitable care experience and outcomes. Lessons had not always been learnt from our last assessment.
Staff and leaders did work well together and there was a positive learning culture. Staff were supported by their leaders and were able to speak up and raise concerns. Staff were proud to work in the department and staff turnover was low.

You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings. In instances where CQC has decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.

Updated 8 January 2020

We rated it as outstanding because:

• We rated safe, effective and caring as good. We rated responsive and well-led as outstanding.
• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service managed patient risk well. The design and use of facilities, premises and equipment kept people safe. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• The service undertook regular audits and discussed these at leadership meetings to improve the service. Leaders ensured that staff received appraisals. The service provided care and treatment in a multidisciplinary way both internally and externally.
• Staff cared for and showed respect to babies, children and their families. Patients and their families told us examples of staff providing compassionate care. Staff informed children and their families and made them partners in their own care, and provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and sought feedback from children and their families. Children could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment. The service ensured that children’s education did not fall behind when children had to spend extended time in hospital.
• Leaders had good oversight of the service. There were governance processes in place to monitor the service and risks were well managed. Staff felt respected and worked well with their colleagues on all levels.

Updated 8 January 2020

Our rating of this service went down. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service was not regularly monitoring the quality of records or medicines management through audit activity. Mandatory training completion rates for medical staff was not always meeting the trust target. The unit did not have a formalised process for carrying out risk assessments for patients thought to be at risk of self-harm or suicide and had not carried out an environmental risk assessment for ligatures. Staffing levels did not always meet national guidance. Safety checks of transfer equipment were not always carried out in accordance with policy.
• Staff were not always carrying out mental capacity assessments when required or clearly recording information about consent or best interest decisions in the patients’ records. Improvements as a result of audits were not always checked and monitored. Access to multi-disciplinary team members was not always in line with national guidelines. Appraisal rates were below the trust target and the number of nurses in possession of a post registration award in critical care was not in line with national guidance.
• The service was not always managing information effectively. There was not always a systematic programme of clinical and internal audit to monitor quality, operational and financial processes. Arrangements for identifying, recording and managing risks, issues and mitigating actions were not always effective. Leaders had not always ensured that learning from external reviews, audits, incidents, or mortality and morbidity reviews was used to make improvements in a timely manner.

However,

• Staff were highly motivated to offer care that was kind and promoted people’s dignity. We were provided with a range of examples of staff going above and beyond to provide compassionate care to patients and relatives. Staff took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.

Updated 8 January 2020

We rated the service as good because:

• The service had enough nursing staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to live well until they died, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the specialist palliative care service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and staff to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 16 June 2021

Updated 8 January 2020

• Staff did not always consistently complete mandatory, safeguarding and mental capacity Act training in line with trust targets.
• The service did not consistently manage safety incidents well and lessons from them were not embedded across the service.
• Records were not stored securely on some wards.
• None of the surgery staff groups met the trust target for appraisals.
• People could not always access the service when they needed it and occasionally had to wait too long for treatment.

However,

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They mostly managed medicines well.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.