Queen Elizabeth Hospital

Updated 3 June 2026

Date of assessment: 24 and 25 February 2026 and 18 and 19 March 2026. Queen Elizabeth Hospital is part of Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust and offers a wide range of hospital services to people living in Lewisham and Greenwich. This assessment looked at urgent and emergency care, medical care, outpatients and diagnostic imaging to assess the quality of the care received by patients using those services. The rating of urgent and emergency care, medical care, outpatients and diagnostic imaging have been combined with the ratings of the other services from the previous assessments. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all the other services at Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The rating of Queen Elizabeth Hospital has improved to good.

Updated 17 February 2026

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Diagnostic Imaging services at Queen Elizabeth Hospital on 18 and 19 March 2026. We inspected all the quality statements in this assessment across the five key questions: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

During our inspection we visited: x-ray, computed tomography (CT), dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scanning, breast clinic, and magnetic resonance Imaging (MRI).

We spoke with over 26 members of staff including radiographers, radiologists, imaging assistants, sonographers, receptionists, and managers.

Updated 23 October 2025

Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust provide medical care services at both the Lewisham Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital sites. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital has 15 medical wards and 377 inpatient beds.

We last inspected medical care services at Queen Elizabeth Hospital on 11 February-11 March 2020, and we rated the medical care service at this inspection as good overall.

We conducted this announced assessment on 24 and 25 February 2026 as part of our winter pressure programme, which meant we looked at a reduced number of quality statements. We visited 5 wards, a discharge lounge, and same day emergency care (SDEC). We spoke with 45 members of staff, including healthcare assistants, ward clerks, domestic workers, nurses, matrons, doctors, and senior leaders.

We rated the service as good. The service had made improvements to medicines management, mandatory and safeguarding training, out of hours medical cover and the planning and management of the service experiencing full capacity. However, we found 5 breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and governance. Patients who were no longer suitable for corridor care were not transferred in a timely manner, risk assessments were not always completed in line with trust guidance, clinical areas did not always follow national fire safety guidance infection, prevention and control (IPC) principles were not always followed, and patient confidentiality was not always maintained.

We have requested an action plan in response to the above breaches from the provider at the time of publication of the formal report.

Updated 4 December 2025

Queen Elizabeth Hospital (QEH) is one of the 2 acute sites operated by Lewisham and Greenwich NHS trust. The trust serves a population of over approximately 1 million people and provides outpatients services primarily for the people living across the London boroughs of Lewisham, Greenwich, and Bexley. QEH employs approximately 7,500 staff. The hospital’s outpatient’s department (OPD) provide a wide range of services and clinics; all located on the ground floor for easy access. These services and clinics include Cardiology, ENT, Gynaecology, Neurology, Respiratory, Rheumatology, Gastroenterology, Dermatology, Urology, Paediatrics, Endocrinology, pain management, amongst other specialities clinics and has a dedicated phlebotomy test clinic in the OPD. The OPD operates from 8:30am to 6:00pm, Monday to Friday. When there is a demonstrated need, additional clinics are scheduled in the evenings and at weekends.

This was the first time OPD at Queen Elizabeth Hospital had been inspected and rated as a standalone acute service group (ASG). Previously, OPD had only been rated as part of the combined outpatients and diagnostic imaging service during the inspection carried out from 7 to 10 March 2017. In March 2017, we conducted a comprehensive inspection of all domains. Safe, caring and well-Led were rated as good, responsive was rated as requires improvement and there was not sufficient evidence to rate effective. As a combined ASG of OPD and diagnostic imaging assessment, this service was not previously in breach of any regulations.

We therefore undertook this announced comprehensive inspection on 24 and 25 February 2026 as the first independent assessment and rating of the OPD service at QEH.

During this inspection, we engaged with a range of staff working across OPD specialties, including nurses, healthcare assistants, administrative teams, phlebotomists, matrons, safeguarding leads, specialist directors, service managers, consultants, student nurses, practice development nurse, chief operating officer, and senior clinical leaders. We also received feedback from 21 patients and relatives using the service.

Updated 5 September 2025

Queen Elizabeth Hospital Emergency Department

The emergency department (ED) at Queen Elizabeth Hospital provides a 24-hour, 7 day a week service to the local population. The consultant led service is a member of a regional trauma network and is a designated trauma unit. The ED consisted of 14 ‘majors’ treatment trolleys, 9 ‘minors’ treatment trolleys, a 4 bedded resuscitation area with a paediatric resuscitation bay, a 9 bedded blue area used for rapid assessment and treatment (RAT), a green area which was being used to support care of patients with mental health and infectious patients consisting of 5 rooms, and a paediatric emergency unit consisting of 8 trolleys and a high dependency unit. There was also 2 triage rooms used for initial tests while patients wait for admission into the ED department. The ED also had a clinical decision unit (CDU) consisting of 2 bays with 5 beds each, 2 side rooms and 6 blue recliner chairs for patients. There is a designated unit for children and young people. There is a co-located urgent treatment centre which opened in November 2024 which is run by a different NHS service.

The Integrated Care Board (ICB) for Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust is NHS South East London Integrated Care Board (SEL ICB). It is responsible for planning health services and commissioning care across the boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham, and Southwark. Queen Elizabeth Hospital's ED is a trauma unit, part of the South East London, Kent and Medway (SELKaM) Trauma Network.

We conducted this announced assessment on 24 and 25 February 2026 as part of our winter pressure programme, which meant we looked at a reduced number of quality statements. We last inspected UEC in 2020 when we rated it as Requires Improvement. At this assessment the ratings improved to Good.

We assessed 25 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last assessment to give the rating.  

We spoke with 12 patients and 6 relatives/carers. We reviewed 14 adult patient records and 6 records of children and young people. We spoke with more than 52 staff which included: consultants, resident doctors, nurses, senior leaders, healthcare assistants, emergency department technicians, administration staff, chief pharmacist, deputy chief pharmacist, pharmacy technician, housekeeping staff and volunteers.

Updated 3 July 2020

Our overall rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Some of the concerns found at the 2017 inspection had still not yet been addressed. During our previous report in March 2017 we found there was a lack of consultant representation at governance meetings. During this inspection we found there was still a lack of consultant attendance at some governance meetings.
• Nursing and medical staff did not meet the trust’s training standard for all life support training modules staff were eligible to complete.
• Mandatory training for medical staff did not meet the trust’s key performance indicators (KPI).
• Although most nursing staff received and kept up-to-date with their mandatory training, some mandatory training modules did not meet the trust’s key performance indicators.
• There was a lack of tailgating notices at access points to children’s wards.
• The low number of records reviewed during records audits meant there was a risk of records audits not being sufficiently representative.
• The numbers of staff receiving an appraisal did not meet the trust’s key performance indicator (KPI).
• Medical staff training rates in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards did not meet the trust’s KPI.
• The trust’s KPI was not being met for average length of stay,
• The trust’s KPI was not being met for the number of children discharged before 12 noon,
• The trust’s KPI was not being met for electronic discharge summaries being sent to patients GPs within 24 hours,
• The trust’s KPI was not being met for the percentage of complaints responded to within agreed timescales.
• Although there had been a reduction in the numbers of children transferred from Hippo ward to paediatric ED due to the closing time of Hippo ward. From January to December 2019, 65 children had been transferred between the wards due to the ward closing time.
• The service did not have documented local vision for what it wanted to achieve and a strategy to turn it into action, developed with all relevant stakeholders.
• Processes for monitoring service quality and improvement were not always consistent.

However:

• All staff we spoke to were aware of their responsibilities relating to duty of candour under the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities Regulations) 2014.
• Care was being provided in accordance with the national quality standards and best practice guidelines. Most guidance and policies within children and young people’s services had been reviewed and were based upon current guidance.
• Staff treated children, young people and their families with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
• The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of local people and the communities served. It also worked with others in the wider system and local organisations to plan care.
• The service was inclusive and took account of children, young people and their family’s individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.
• Leaders had the integrity, skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear.

Updated 3 July 2020

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had taken action to address concerns raised following our last inspection. Our ratings for safe and responsive improved from requires improvement to good. We rated well led as outstanding as we found leadership, culture and staff engagement within the service were exceptional. Leaders recognised that promoting staff wellbeing, and supporting staff engagement, were key in delivering high-quality, patient-centred care.
• 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 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 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. People could access the 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 the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 11 January 2019

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

• There was still not a seven-day SPCT service.
• The often-large paper patient medical records were not always fully bound or in the correct order.
• We noted inconsistent completion of mental capacity assessments, the recording of pain scores and eating and fluid intake charts.
• There was no succession planning for when the current end of life care strategy comes to an end in March 2019.
• Minutes from the end of life steering group showed that attendance was variable.

However:

• Awareness of end of life care at staff and trust level had improved since our previous inspection.
• There was evidence of good multidisciplinary team working between ward staff, the specialist palliative care team (SPCT) and other allied healthcare professionals (AHP).
• A dedicated end of life risk register had been introduced since our last inspection.
• With the help of the SPCT rapid discharge of patients to their homes or other preferred place of care could be arranged.

Updated 24 January 2024

Updated 17 August 2017

Outpatients and diagnostic imaging were rated as good because patients were receiving safe, effective care and the service was well-led. The service needed to improve how it responded to patients.

We found a good culture of reporting incidents and the environment was safe and clean. Equipment had been cleaned and checked. Care and treatment was provided in line with national guidance and regulations. Patients told us staff were kind and said they felt involved in their care with staff providing explanations as needed.

Staff were positive were about their immediate managers and said they supported them and they felt valued. Outpatients and diagnostic imaging had developed a five year strategy for improving the service

However, the service was not always meeting national referral to treatment times and the ‘Did not attend’ (DNA) rate was higher than the England average. Many of the clinics were observed were running late and there was no evidence that this was being monitored.

Updated 3 July 2020

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good

• Following our inspection in 2018, there had been improvements to the surgical service. Staff were overwhelmingly positive about the divisional and local leadership for the service. In contrast to our findings during our last inspection, all staff groups felt they provided positive leadership, strong direction and supported staff.
• Staff confirmed there had been a positive culture change in the last two years. This led to better staff retention, in particular, medical staff.
• Governance process was robust and risks were regularly reviewed and updated. Staff were engaged in the governance agenda and quality improvement project.
• There were effective systems in place to protect patients from harm and a good incident reporting culture. Staff informed us they reported all incidents. This was in contrast to findings during our last inspection when low level incidents were not always reported
• Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment. Records were clear, up-to-date and relevant risk assessments were completed.
• Patients received effective, evidence-based care from staff who were appropriately qualified to care for them. The service monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and patient outcomes were within expected standards.
• Feedback for the services inspected were mostly positive. Staff respected confidentiality, dignity and privacy of patients.
• Services were developed to meet the needs of patients. The service had a surgical assessment unit for rapid assessment and treatment of patients. There were dedicated surgical wards for different specialities and good patient flow across surgical services.

However,

• The service was not meeting the trust target for mandatory training and staff appraisals.
• Although medicines management had improved since the last inspection, we still identified some areas of concern. This was reflected in the trust medicine audits which showed compliance was sometimes below trust standards.
• Although patient flow had improved since our last inspection, the day care unit was no longer ringfenced due to wider bed pressures in the trust. This increased the risk of cancellations for elective surgeries due to inpatient admissions.
• Action plans for national audits were not always comprehensive. Most action plans did not identify a course of action in line with the recommendations made and there were no timescales for completion.