- NHS hospital
Queen Elizabeth Hospital
Assessment report published 3 June 2026
Contents
Ratings - Outpatients
Our view of the service
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.
People's experience of this service
Most people we spoke with said they felt well cared for and had good experiences in the OPD. They described staff as kind, reassuring and approachable, and said clinicians explained treatment clearly and checked understanding. Relatives told us they were welcomed and involved when appropriate. We observed consistently positive interactions, with staff offering help, answering questions and supporting people who appeared anxious or confused. People with additional communication or accessibility needs also felt supported, with staff using interpreters, language tools and easy‑read information. The trust had improved outpatient letters, increased font size and offered easy‑read and braille versions, which consultation groups said helped reduce inequalities. Improvements to signage and wayfinding had also made it easier for people to navigate the department.
However, some patients and relatives told us their experience varied depending on the clinic and time of day. Of the 21 people we spoke with, 14 described concerns about aspects of their visit. We observed that unclear signage, unfamiliar self‑check‑in kiosks and crowded waiting areas sometimes caused confusion or frustration. Several people said they were unsure where to go on arrival, and some reported that delays were not always explained, which affected their confidence in the service.
Privacy was not always maintained. This was particularly evident in phlebotomy, where curtains were sometimes left open, and in reception areas where personal conversations could be overheard. These issues indicated that people’s experience did not always fully meet expected standards, despite generally positive feedback.
Feedback gathered during the inspection reflected a mix of views. While many patients and relatives described excellent care and said staff went “above and beyond”, the concerns raised by a majority of those we spoke to highlighted inconsistencies in privacy, responsiveness and clarity of information. Our assessment found that, although many people were satisfied with their care, some aspects of the service did not consistently meet expected standards.