Queen Elizabeth 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 as 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.

Staff used structured assessment processes to ensure that patients received care tailored to their individual health, wellbeing, and communication needs. Patients also felt empowered to make their own decision about their care with the support of the service. For example, the service had a patient requiring both respiratory and maternity input and facilitated the patient’s wishes to remain on the respiratory ward antenatally due to the positive rapport that had been built. The service worked closely with staff on the maternity unit to facilitate this and ensure the patient received safe care.

We reviewed 7 patient records during the assessment and found that care plans were personalised, holistic and updated when necessary. Multidisciplinary ward rounds that we observed were comprehensive and we observed risks and benefits of care options being discussed to ensure patients could make informed decisions.

The service took steps to support carers of patients, recognising the importance of their physical and emotional wellbeing. Patients received support from the therapies teams as required. The service also facilitated visitors of end-of-life patients to have unrestricted access.

We observed staff treat all patients equally and with dignity and respect. Equality and diversity was part of staff mandatory training, training compliance rates were 95%, which exceeded the trust target of 90%.

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 however, this was not available in multiple formats that were tailored to individual needs.

We observed several information boards and leaflets throughout the service that patients and their families had access to. This included but was not limited to information on dementia, tissue viability, infection prevention and control and pressure ulcer wounds. However, there were limitations in the availability of information in different formats and languages. While translation services were available, there was no evidence of and staff did not mention any access to printed materials in other formats or in languages other than English.

Staff provided patients and their families with precise and current information, helping them understand their care, treatment options, and any changes to their treatment plans. We observed clinicians dedicating time to answering patients' and families' questions, ensuring that information was clearly explained and understood.

The trust had a smoking cessation team that were running a ‘Swap to Stop’ campaign to eliminate smoking and reduce health inequalities. This included recommending vaping as a safer alternative to smoking tobacco as concluded by independent expert research.

A principal health psychologist was also awarded a grant to tackle gaps in mental health and obesity care. This will allow a study focussed on reducing mental health inequalities in access to obesity treatments, starting with patients with binge eating disorders.

The service encouraged people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, complaints were not always managed in a timely manner.

The service had mechanisms for patients, families, and carers to provide feedback, including formal complaint procedures, the friends and family test, and direct feedback to staff. However, complaints were not always managed in a timely manner. The hospital offered many ways for people to share their experiences. Most patients we spoke with were aware of how to raise a formal complaint but reported not needing to.

Ward managers reported that complaints made to the patient’s advice and liaison service (PALS) were referred to them to be managed locally and escalated to the complaints team if they were not resolved. Between February 2025 and January 2026, the service had received 278 formal complaints, of which 1 had been referred to the ombudsman in the last 12 months.

The service’s response rate against the agreed timeframe did not always meet the trust target of 80%. The response rate was 71% in September, 100% in October and only 50% in November 2025. Complaints were discussed at monthly governance meeting however, meeting minutes did not identify plans to improve compliance or how delays are communicated to patients.

Staff reported that learning from complaints were disseminated through emails, daily ward huddles and learning events. Staff were also able to give examples of changes made to the service in response to complaints. An example of this was the introduction of a visitor’s passport that identified patients next of kins and provides them with authorisation to visit the ward outside of hours. This ensured that all staff would be aware of the agreement and avoid unnecessary challenge. We also observed positive feedback and compliments being shared at monthly governance meetings.

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

Patients were able to access care when required as the service was open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Data showed that bed occupancy within the service was consistently high however, the trust utilised corridor care on wards to combat demand.

The average length of stay for patients within the service was 9 days in November, 9.9 days in December and 10.8 days in January 2026. This exceeded the national average of 6.9 days. The service reported ongoing work to reduce increased length of stay. This included but was not limited to daily length of stay reviews by matrons, development of a weekend discharge planning structure and a review of the discharge lounge structure to increase optimisation.

We observed staff making reasonable adjustments for patients. This included walking aids being provided and accessible bathrooms with shower chairs for patients who required them.

Staff reported having adequate medical cover day and night and that doctors could attend the ward quickly in an emergency.

The service had access to virtual wards which was facilitated by a partner NHS trust, which would allow patients to be discharged sooner as they would receive acute care monitoring and treatment at home. However, senior leaders reported that this service was underutilised. Data for January 2026 showed that the service received 120 referrals per weighted 100,000 population, against a national target of 180 referrals per weighted 100,000 population. Senior leaders, they were working with the local authority to improve this.

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.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. We observed discussions about complex cases and referral arrangements during multidisciplinary board round meetings.

Staff supported patients and their families in making informed decisions about their future care, ensuring that patient with complex or life-limiting conditions received the necessary support and planning for their ongoing needs. Staff reported that where treatment options were changed, limited, or withdrawn, they communicated openly and sensitively with families, ensuring that decisions were made collaboratively and in line with what mattered most to the patient and their carer’s.

Patients and their families were encouraged to express their wishes about care interventions, including preferences around cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), with opportunities to review and revise their decisions as needed. We observed evidence of treatment escalation plans (TEP) being discussed and documented appropriately.

We observed multidisciplinary teams working to coordinate care and supporting patients and their families to navigate important transitions in care.