Queen Elizabeth Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them in line with best practice.

Staff planned and delivered care in collaboration with patients and their families, ensuring that treatment was personalised and aligned with best practice standards. Care and treatment were provided in accordance with national guidelines and evidence-based practice, with staff demonstrating a strong understanding of clinical protocols. We saw evidence of clinical guideline introduction and updates being discussed regularly at monthly governance meetings and action plans being developed to monitor this.

The service was involved in national audits which included but was not limited to the myocardial ischemia national audit, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease audit and the national cardiac arrest audit. These audits aimed to improve the quality of diagnosis, treatment and management of conditions by collecting, analysing and disseminating data collated by various hospitals. They also allowed the trust to benchmark themselves against other trusts. The service was not a negative outlier in any of the medicine related audits.

The service also conducted local audits to monitor clinical outcomes, these included but were not limited to admission rates, average length of stay, readmission rates overall and for specific conditions. The service then used this data to drive improvements and changes within the service. Evidence of this was the introduction of the acute medical unit model in November 2025 in response to increased length of stay. The new model incorporated the acute assessment unit, acute medical unit, frailty same day emergency care (SDEC) and acute frailty unit in one clinical area. Since the introduction of this model the service audits have shown a reduction in patients’ length of stay within the area.

The service was actively involved in quality improvement projects to improve the quality of care and treatment. Following a pilot project the service introduced yellow jugs and cups for adult patients on fluid restrictions, to provide a visual prompt to remind staff to monitor the patient’s fluids intake and output.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff demonstrated effective collaboration between teams and services, ensuring continuity of care and patient safety. Nursing, medical, physiotherapy, SaLT (Speech and Language Therapy), discharge and specialist care teams were all visible during our assessment to support patients.

We observed effective working relationships. A team-based approach was particularly evident during ward rounds and board rounds, where staff worked together to review treatment plans, assess progress, and identify any ongoing support needs.

Staff described good working relationships with colleagues in the division with medical staff being accessible when needed.

Staff had access to an electronic system that recorded patient pathways and care plans, which they reported as effective in maintaining clear communication and coordination between different teams.

Patients we spoke with reported that staff were supportive, actively involved them in their care and gave them the opportunity to discuss their worries and concerns. The service had a frailty service which included the frailty same day emergency care unit and the acute frailty unit. Frailty services had dedicated medical staff during the day and was covered by general medicine medical staff overnight. The service worked closely with outpatients and community services to ensure elderly patients had support as inpatients and in the community. Outpatient and community services included perioperative care of older people clinics, fall and frailty clinics and memory services.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it using quality improvement projects, introduction of new initiatives and technology.

The service actively submitted data to the getting it right first time (GIRFT) dashboard. This allowed the service to analyse outcomes over time and benchmark themselves against other services within the integrated care board and nationally. Staff we spoke with were aware of this dashboard and areas that required improvement. For example, GIRFT data showed the service’s readmission rate between November 2025 and January 2026 was 12.5%. This was slightly higher than the national target of 11.1% however, senior leaders were aware of this and reported ongoing work to reduce this figure which included, the introduction of a frequent attender lead in the emergency department and a new review system to monitor trends in readmissions.

Staff demonstrated good use of risk assessments to identify the needs of patients in relation to their nutritional needs. We observed mealtimes being protected and red trays being used to easily identify patients who needed extra support.

Staff used technology to support patients effectively. Through audits it was identified that staff did not always categorise pressure ulcer wounds appropriately. In response the service introduced a protected app that allows staff to take pictures of pressure ulcers with patients consent and store them in patient notes. This allowed staff to confirm categorisation and track wound healing or deterioration to improve outcomes.

The service carried out quality improvement (QI) projects to improve patient experience and outcomes. An example of this was an optimising lumbar puncture for acute medical patients QI project. The project aimed to reduce inefficiencies caused by equipment availability and distribution, by introducing pre-made lumbar puncture packs. Findings showed a significant reduction in time required to collect equipment, visits to other departments and missing equipment. The service continued to monitor the upkeep and usage of the premade packs.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centered care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. Patients and families were provided with verbal and written explanations of procedures, including potential risks and benefits. Staff were observed taking the time to thoroughly explain treatments, ensuring that patients understood the nature of the procedure before providing consent.

The service had systems in place for obtaining consent for patients with communication difficulties. This included translation services for patients whose first language was not English.

When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes. Staff were easily able to identify patients under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the mental Capacity Act (MCA) and reported that multidisciplinary discussions were used to make decisions for patients.

All patients we spoke with told us they had an opportunity to ask questions about their care and treatment and understood it. One service user told us that staff were patient and gave allowed the time to “take everything in”, which allowed them to be actively involved in all decision making.