Guy's 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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care that was kind, respectful and focused on their individual needs. Staff interacted with people in a compassionate way, and many told us they felt listened to and supported. Several people described staff as “reassuring”, and many highlighted that clinical staff took time to explain their care and answer questions in full. Staff also made reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs.

Leaders reviewed patient feedback and acted on the findings. People were encouraged to use a hospital passport, which helped inform hospital staff about the needs of the patient with a learning disability and how to support them. We saw that they had a communication box with flashcards and information on how to contact an interpreter. Staff had access to a learning disability link nurse who was based at St Thomas’ Hospital and could provide advice and support by telephone. Staff were also able to refer patients to outreach services elsewhere in the trust, such as to the homelessness and alcohol recovery teams.

Patients did not need to book an appointment and were generally seen on a first come first served basis. The service had a system to facilitate prioritisation according to clinical need where more serious cases or young children could be prioritised as they arrived. Patients could complete x-rays where required and receive relevant treatment or referral to appropriate healthcare providers.

The service had systems to ensure neurodivergent patients received suitable care. Compliance for training on autism and learning disabilities was 89.86% and those who had not received the training were booked on.

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 service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff gave people clear explanations about their assessment, diagnosis and treatment. People consistently reported that staff kept them informed. People received information and advice that was accurate, provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs. People were provided with relevant information about their health and follow up care and treatment as required. Printed information for patients was provided by the department; however, we observed that they were predominantly available only in English.

People’s individual needs to have information in an accessible way were identified, recorded, and shared. These needs were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people and interpreting and translation for people who did not speak English as a first language.

Information gathered about patients or others was held in secure systems. Access to computerised patient records was password protected with a secure login. Most staff had completed mandatory training on information governance. However, we noticed a few cases where staff left computer records open when away, which could result in breaches of patient confidentiality and data protection requirements.

Patients we spoke with told us they had been given clear information from staff regarding their treatment, including any follow-up procedures or appointments that might be needed. Discharge letters were sent electronically to GPs and other professionals if required, for example to community nursing teams. The electronic health record guaranteed completion of discharge letters in a timely way. Patients could also access their discharge summaries immediately via a web application which allowed patient to securely access parts of their health record. Access to a citywide electronic patient record system meant different professionals could see key information about patients to ensure their care was planned and transition between services was managed. Patient records were held on a secure electronic patient record system which was accessed by staff using their individual log in details.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and took time to understand their concerns. Patients, their families and carers felt staff listened to them and cared. We observed the staff were friendly and compassionate and communicated well with people. Observation of triage showed assessment nurses taking brief but meaningful histories, checking key concerns and allowing people to ask questions. People were able to provide feedback about their experiences with the service through patient surveys. Patient feedback was positive on average in 2025 90.1% of patients felt that the service was good or very good.

There was an up-to-date complaints policy. The service had effective systems to monitor, investigate, respond and learn from complaints. They were discussed at clinical governance meetings and included in clinical governance reviews and shared with staff to enable learning and improvement. Staff were knowledgeable about the complaint-handling process and could articulate the steps taken to manage complaints. There had been 7 complaints for the Urgent Care service between January 2025 and January 2026, with the main theme relating to clinical care. Staff indicated that complaints arose from patient expectations exceeding the capabilities of the service, largely due to limited understanding regarding the scope of care the service could provide.

Most staff reported that they felt able to raise concerns with leaders if needed, and that their concerns would be listened to and acted upon. Staff felt safe to speak up without fear of negative consequences and gave examples of changes that had been made following their input. This positive culture was reflected in the way staff escalated concerns about people being sent to the UCC from outpatient clinics and arriving in the UCC with more complex or urgent needs than the service was designed to manage. This directly informed planned service improvements such as better signage and clearer directions within the facility, as well as work with teams and the ambulance service to better understand the limits of the service provided by the UCC.

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

Patients had equal access to care, treatment and support. People could access the service 7 days a week, from 8am to 8pm and there were clear pathways for redirecting people safely when capacity was reached. Patients could access the service either as a walk in-patient, via the NHS 111 service or by referral from a healthcare professional. Patients did not need to book an appointment.

Patient care was managed to take account of people’s needs, including those with the most urgent needs. The average length of stay within the department between February 2025 and January 2026 was 1 hour 46 minutes. Patients were kept informed of any disruption to their care. The compliance rate with the RCEM triage standard requiring triage within 15 minutes over the past 12 months was 75.5%. This meant for most people, their urgent needs were identified quickly, and care could be prioritised appropriately, although there was room for improvement to ensure all patients were triaged promptly and safely. Observations showed effective streaming from reception to assessment staff, with urgent cases prioritised and transferred quickly to St Thomas’ Emergency Department when required. Staff also had access to clinical guidelines, electronic patient care records and referral pathways that supported decision-making and continuity, although some policies observed on site were outdated and required updating.

The service considered the needs of people with different protected characteristics and made reasonable adjustments to ensure patient’s individual needs could be met. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people. Staff used a dedicated system to inform mental health services when someone required assessment.

People experienced care that was fair and inclusive, and the service worked to reduce inequalities in outcomes. Staff demonstrated awareness of individual needs and made reasonable adjustments to support people with protected characteristics, including those with learning disabilities and dementia. They used patient record alerts, safeguarding pathways and local policies to ensure people at higher risk were identified and monitored appropriately. Staff compliance with mandatory training in Equality, Diversity and Human Rights was high, at 100%.

The service showed its dedication to reducing health inequalities by adopting values focused on inclusivity. Their goal was to offer care that met patients' needs regardless of background, helping to close gaps in health outcomes. Patients were not disadvantaged by digital exclusion, as staff ensured equitable access to important information. Staff explained they could provide printed versions of discharge summaries for those who may not have access to digital devices or online platforms. Additionally, patient registration was managed directly by the reception team, rather than relying solely on digital booking systems.

The service also had access to a Community Health Inclusion Team, who supported people experiencing homelessness, asylum seekers and refugees. The team helped to ensure that vulnerable individuals were not excluded from care and received support that was sensitive to their unique circumstances.

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.