Queen Elizabeth Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. This key question has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The service treated people with kindness and respect. Staff listened to people, supported them with compassion. People were involved in conversations and felt safe and valued. However, staff did not always maintain dignity during care were not always upheld.

Most patients told us staff treated them well, and we observed many kind, calm and supportive interactions. Staff were discreet when sharing information, responded promptly when people needed help, and offered reassurance when patients appeared anxious or confused. We noted particularly warm communication in OPD area A, where staff took time to explain care and help patients feel at ease. Patients generally felt respected and valued, and staff demonstrated good awareness of cultural, social and religious needs, adjusting care by involving families, offering privacy and ensuring the right support was available. For example, staff supported a patient with a learning disability and her mother throughout a procedure with clear explanations, emotional reassurance and practical help. Recent accessibility improvements, including clearer signage, hearing loops and accessible information, further strengthened dignity for disabled patients.

Staff told us they could raise concerns about disrespectful or unsafe behaviours without fear, and they understood the importance of confidentiality. We usually saw patient information handled appropriately, and isolated lapses were escalated and resolved at the time. This contributed to an environment where patients generally felt safe, supported and treated with dignity.

However, some patients did not consistently experience care that upheld privacy and dignity. In the phlebotomy area, 4 rooms operated as double‑occupancy spaces with privacy curtains, but none were drawn whilst attending to patients during the assessment, and room 6 had no curtain at all. This meant some patients did not have their privacy fully protected, exposing elements of consultations.

Some staff behaviours also affected people’s experience. We witnessed a consultant shouting at staff in a public area, which distressed nearby patients and did not reflect respectful or compassionate practice. Staff reported periods of poor teamwork at reception, which negatively affected the experience of people waiting.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. However, communication support upon check-in was not always readily available to meet individual needs.

Staff used clear impairment notices to encourage people with hearing or sight difficulties to inform staff, helping them provide the right adjustments. Patients who did not speak English had easy access to interpreters, supported by posters listing 28 languages so staff could quickly identify the required language, and interpretation services were available at no cost to patients. Information was provided in accessible formats. Easy‑read appointment letters were available, written in simple language with pictures to support children and people with learning disabilities. Standard appointment letters also told patients how to request alternative formats such as braille, large print or increased font size. Patients received clear information about treatments, their rights, how to complain and how to access PALS

The service respected cultural and religious needs. Staff supported patients with dietary requirements and involved carers appropriately, particularly for people with learning disabilities, who also received tailored communication support from learning disability liaison nurses. Patients and carers reported that these reasonable adjustments helped them feel included and understood.

However, some patients did not always receive personalised communication at the first point of contact, which meant that not all individual needs were identified promptly. We observed that some people struggled to navigate the department because their communication needs were not recognised early enough. For example, patients whose first language was not English sometimes became confused about where to go before staff realised they needed interpreting support, even though language identification tools and telephone interpretation were available. During busy periods, patients who found the self‑check‑in kiosks difficult to use, particularly older people or those unfamiliar with technology, were seen waiting or appearing unsure without immediate support, meaning their need for tailored communication or practical assistance was not identified until later.

The service supported people to have independence and control over their care. Staff listened to what mattered to people and helped them make informed decisions. People were given choices and felt involved throughout their appointments.

Most people said they were fully involved in their care and treatment. They told us that staff listened to them, checked their understanding, and clarified information when needed, which helped them feel informed and confident. People were also able to attend appointments with someone of their choosing, supporting their comfort and sense of control.

The trust had developed guidance to support staff in planning reasonable adjustments for people with additional needs. This guidance focused on recognising individuals and ensuring people have a voice throughout their appointment. Staff used this approach to help patients feel prepared and involved in decisions about their care. Patients were also supported to make choices during examinations or procedures, and chaperone guidance displayed in OPD areas clearly explained patients’ entitlement to request a chaperone at any time, helping them feel safe and supported.

However, some people told us they needed additional clarification when attending appointments and did not always feel fully prepared or in control initially. At times, staff did not immediately identify when a person had additional needs, such as dementia or a learning disability, which meant reasonable adjustments were not always put in place early. When this happened, people occasionally became confused or anxious before staff were able to offer support or clearer communication. This indicated that personalised information was not always provided early enough to consistently support people’s independence.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff understood specific risks such as falls or pressure‑related harm and planned care accordingly. Where risks changed, staff adapted how they supported people, ensuring patients did not wait without being monitored. Improvements made within the OPD also strengthened the service’s ability to respond quickly. Remapping kiosks, improving their placement and adding clear signage reduced confusion, meaning patients could get to the right area faster and staff had more capacity to focus on people who needed immediate support.

The wider OPD improvement work, including updated signage, clearer appointment letters and better accessibility features, further supported staff to identify and respond to patient needs earlier. Feedback gathered through patient consultation groups showed that the service acted on concerns about accessibility and clarity, which helped staff recognise when patients required extra support and intervene sooner.

However, some patients did not always have their immediate needs recognised as quickly as they could have been. At busier times, the check‑in process created delays, and some patients needed support because kiosks were mapped incorrectly or were not accessible in all areas. These issues meant staff had to step away from other tasks to manually check patients in, which limited the time available to identify changing risks early. Once staff were aware of concerns, they responded promptly and took appropriate action to keep people safe.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Most staff said they felt respected, supported and valued by their managers. They described positive team cultures across OPD and said they were proud to work for the trust. Staff reported that their appraisals took place consistently and included discussions about wellbeing, career development and setting future goals. Staff wellbeing was strongly supported across the trust. A wide range of wellbeing resources was available, including physiotherapy, yoga, pilates, meditation, sound‑bath sessions, gym discounts and financial wellbeing support. Staff could also access emotional and psychological help through the Employee Assistance Programme and could self‑refer to Occupational Health services for assessments, vaccinations, Musculoskeletal (MSK) support and advice. Regular wellbeing clinics operated at both hospital sites, and staff networks and wellbeing champions were available to provide peer support.

The trust also promoted a culture of recognition. Staff achievements were celebrated through schemes such as the LGT Star Awards and regular wellbeing events across sites. Staff told us they felt able to speak up without fear and were confident their managers would listen and act. This contributed to a positive working environment where staff felt valued and able to deliver high‑quality care.

However, some staff told us that frequent service changes and busy clinic environments could be challenging, and this sometimes affected their day‑to‑day wellbeing. Staff also described pressures related to patient aggression, and sickness levels meant some teams relied regularly on bank staff to maintain safe cover. Although staffing pressures were present, managers ensured bank workers used were familiar with the service, which helped maintain stability during periods of higher absence. Staff said that despite these pressures, they continued to feel supported when raising concerns.