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. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected. We looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. We also looked for evidence that staff wellbeing was valued, and that staff were supported and enabled to deliver consistently person‑centred care.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This means staff treated patients with kindness, empathy and compassion and tried to ensure their dignity and respect was maintained. Staff always treated each other with kindness and respect. The majority of patients were positive about the care they received. Leaders promoted and supported the wellbeing of staff.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Patients told us they felt reassured by the staff and were confident in their care. Friends and family survey results from 1 July 2025 to September 2025 indicated 66% of patients were satisfied with their care and treatment. The survey had had 1111 responses during these 3 months. The most frequently used words to describe care were kind, caring, reassuring and understanding.

Staff at all levels sought to accommodate patients’ needs and demonstrated a caring attitude to people with mental health needs. The electronic and paper patient records system allowed for transparency in patient needs and cultural preferences. There were facilities and support available for patients with dementia, complex needs and those who were neurodiverse. There were boxes available for patients who were neurodiverse which contained items to provide calming stimuli. Staff were aware of the presence of these. The play specialist provided specialist toys to children who had extra needs.

Staff were able to access appropriate interpretation services to communicate with patients. However, staff told us that due to the diversity of the team, the staff adjusted the allocations so that a staff member who spoke the patient’s language could treat the patient.

Staff worked to protect patient’s dignity. There were shower facilities on-site for patients and we observed staff escorting patients to the toilet. Where two patients were sharing a bay originally designed for one, the service used curtains or screens to screen patients and protect their dignity. Whilst this helped it did not alleviate sounds and conversations about and with the patient.

There was a culture of collaboration and respect between internal and external colleagues. We observed staff interacting positively with ambulance staff during a handover, handling an urgent transition with patience. This positive culture allowed staff to provide compassionate care for patients.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Independence, choice and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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.

The department had processes and tools for assessing patients when they first presented to the department. Staff used a national triage tool to triage patients. Most patients were streamed (assessed) by the GP provider that runs the urgent treatment centre and sent to the appropriate services including Urgent Care Centre (UCC), Clinical Decisions Unit (CDU), Mental Health Assessment Unit and same day care units. Patients who required the services of the emergency department were then triaged and possibly treated by the triage team. The triage team further assessed the patients’ needs and ordered tests to assist the clinical staff to treat the patient.

The service had a clear system to identify people with mental health needs and align to the appropriate pathway. During triage, nurses completed the mental health risk assessment and informed the mental health team on site. Psychiatric liaison members of staff completed assessments in parallel to emergency department members of staff.

The children’s ED had access to the Children’s Adolescence Mental Health service team (CAMHS) for an assessment and treatment of children and young people. The children’s ED had a room in which children and young people could stay whilst they awaited further treatment or discharge. The play specialist helped to support these patients through tailoring activities to their needs and being available to listen to them.

There was signage at the ED front door that stated patients would be treated according to the severity of their condition. The triage team numbers were increased in line with activity throughout the day. This meant that patients awaiting further assessment or testing were seen as soon as possible.

There were mechanisms to address patient’s comfort needs. Housekeeping staff conducted comfort rounding to ensure that every patient was offered food and drink throughout their stay which met their needs. Staff told us nutritional needs including cultural and religious needs were identified during the comfort rounding. Staff told us patients were offered hot meals throughout the day.

Staff responded to patient’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. We observed a nurse re-assess a patient’s pain after discussing the care plan and provided pain relief in line with the patient’s pain score. The Urgent and Emergency Care Survey 2024 did not reflect our observations as it stated that patients only rated this issue as 5 out of 10. The response to ‘Do you think the hospital staff helped you to control your pain?’ was worse than the national average. However, it did support what patients told us about waiting for pain relief.

There was clear signage in the waiting room and patient bathrooms for patients to raise a complaint. Staff were aware of the complaints process and provided examples of learning from patient complaints. For instance, there was patient feedback regarding lack of support for patients experiencing a miscarriage. As a result, an area had been allocated to give women increased privacy and ease of access to a toilet. Staff were aware of this change in process.

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

There was an inclusive organisational culture which enabled staff to have a sense of belonging. Leaders told us staff wellbeing was important to them. They recognised that staff were often under pressure within a very busy department. Leaders encouraged staff to reflect on their working life but also supported staff to have a good work life balance. Several staff members told us they had worked at Queen Elizabeth Hospital for several years due to the work culture. Several staff members referred to the staff as a “family and one team.”’ Staff who had left the hospital and returned said that they had done so because of the camaraderie of the team in the department and hospital.

There were mechanisms to collect staff feedback and reflect on staff concerns to deliver high quality person-centred care. Staff told us they felt listened to by leaders and were able to escalate concerns directly to them. The leadership team encouraged the staff to become involved in initiatives and offer the team a safe space to fail without fear of blame.

Staff told us they were able to influence change and contribute to decision-making in the department. Leaders empowered frontline staff to drive initiatives to improve quality and safety. For instance, in November 2024 they met with staff to look at the “rubbish rules” and agree which of these were not helpful to staff in their daily work. This refresh of the way in which staff worked was engineered by staff and therefore empowered them to manage change. Similarly, the trust was rolling out Compassion in Care, a programme of refreshing basic nursing care for patients to the emergency department. As part of this process, staff would be encouraged to drive an initiative that they felt was important for the care of patients. Staff we spoke to were aware of this and had already thought about changes that could be made.

The service supported staff onboarding and continued professional development. Newly qualified nurses received around 18 months of preceptorship and were offered the option to extend this period until they felt comfortable in their role. Training days were organised multiple times a year and focused on relevant areas. For example, there was an all staff invitation to governance meetings to discuss where things had not gone well and to learn from this. These were well attended by all grades of staff and an option to join online meant that staff could attend all or part of the meeting. Staff told us they were provided cover to attend the training. A mentorship programme was in place for staff to continuously identify and develop skills. All staff had one week a year not in the department to attend mandatory training.

Leaders had taken steps to recognise and meet the wellbeing needs of staff, which included the necessary resources and facilities for safe working, such as regular breaks and rest areas. There was adequate staffing coverage during shifts to allow for breaks. Staff told us the nurse in charge arranged or provided cover if needed so that nursing staff could take their breaks.

Leaders supported staff wellbeing through offering flexible shift scheduling to accommodate reasonable adjustments. Staff told us they were valued by leaders. There were support mechanisms in place to support staff in the event of catastrophic events including a “hot” debrief in the immediate aftermath and a “cold” debrief once the incident had been reviewed. 90% of nursing staff and 85% of medical staff had attended the conflict resolution training. Staff told us violence and aggression incidents were increasing. Therefore, this training supported them to manage these situations.

The service valued the wellbeing of staff. The trust had a wellbeing strategy which encompassed six pillars including: Personal, Financial, Spiritual, Physical, Psychological and Work. Staff spoke about the support they received from leaders and peers. There was a communication channel which was dedicated to social activities. In the children’s ED we heard about staff going on trips, having picnics, camping, walking a marathon and playing rounders as ways of building the team and relieving stress.

The trust also had a star awards scheme which were presented to those nominated by their colleagues in the department. Alongside this were the excellence awards and employee of the month awards. These were all nominated by team members. Staff felt that these initiatives demonstrated that their work was valued. There were a number of support mechanisms provided by the trust which included, fast track physiotherapy sessions, psychological interventions, social spaces and wellbeing hubs, groups for specific issues and a trust choir.