Warwick Hospital

Updated 28 October 2026

We carried out an assessment of medical care services only at Warwick Hospital. We inspected the service to carry out a comprehensive inspection and follow up a S29A Warning Notice served in March 2025 in relation to 3 breaches of regulations in relation to safeguarding, safe care and treatment and governance. This inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 14, 15 and 16 July 2026, by a team of inspectors and specialist advisors. 

South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust provides acute hospital and community health services for approximately half a million people across Warwickshire, and young people and family services in Coventry and Solihull. Community inpatient care is provided at Stratford-upon-Avon Hospital and Royal Leamington Spa Rehabilitation Hospital. Ellen Badger Hospital has recently been redeveloped to provide outpatient services for the trust and includes space for community partners to deliver wellbeing services and activities.

We found breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. We have requested an action plan to show how the service will meet the breaches of regulation, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.

Updated 13 April 2026

The medical care service at Warwick Hospital includes general medical wards and specialist wards including respiratory, endocrinology, gastroenterology, frailty, a medical assessment unit, cardiology and care of the elderly. The service also operates virtual wards, same day emergency care and ambulatory care. The medical care services are managed and led by the trust’s urgent and emergency care division. 

We carried out a site inspection of medical care services provided at Warwick Hospital on 14, 15 and 16 July 2026. We inspected this to follow up a S29A Warning Notice served in March 2025, for assurance improvements had been made and to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the service. 

During our inspection, we visited 10 clinical areas. We reviewed the environment, staffing levels and looked at care records and medicine records. We spoke with 13 patients and family members and observed how care and treatment was provided. We also spoke to 56 staff of different grades, including; nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, ward managers and senior managers responsible for medical services. We reviewed trust policies and procedure and performance information about the provider and service. 

We inspected all 34 quality statements across the key questions safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

During our previous assessment in March 2025, we served a S29A Warning Notice in relation to safeguarding and safe care and treatment. Staff had not always acted in line with guidance when using restrictive practices. Staff did not always assess risks to patient's health and safety or mitigate them where identified. Governance systems and audits were not always effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement. During this inspection, we found significant improvements had been made and we were assured the service had taken action against all areas of concern related to medical care.

We rated this service as good overall. 

We found a breach of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. We have requested an action plan to show how the service will meet the breaches of regulation, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.

Updated 30 July 2025

We carried out this assessment as part of our regular inspections, it had last been inspected in March 2018.

We assessed all quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions and have combined the scores for these areas to give an overall rating.

Updated 30 July 2025

We completed an unannounced inspection of services for children and young people on 21 and 22 October 2025 at Warwick Hospital. Our inspection of children and young people services was based on intelligence information and an aged rating from 2017.

This was a comprehensive assessment, and we assessed all quality statements across each key question of is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. We rated all key questions as good. We rated the service overall as good.

The hospital’s children and young people’s service had 1 ward, MacGregor ward which was a 17-bed inpatient ward, children’s outpatient area, special care baby unit (SCBU), and transitional care unit, paediatric assessment unit (PAU) and neonates unit. The service also provided 1 high dependency bed. The ward and units accommodated children and young people from birth to 16 years of age.

Children and young people were assessed on the PAU for further care and treatment to be identified. Following assessment, children were either admitted for treatment on the ward or discharged home. The neonatal unit looked after new-born babies who needed extra support.

A CQC team of 1 inspector, 1 regulatory coordinator, 2 CQC senior specialists for people with a learning disability and autism and 2 specialist advisors carried out the inspection. We spoke with 15 staff members including senior nursing staff, ward managers, sisters and healthcare assistants. We met with doctors and consultants, housekeeping, nurses and student nurses. Also, the lead for diabetes, the lead for epilepsy, safeguarding leads, and the paediatric crisis, neurodiversity and learning disability lead nurse. During the assessment we spoke with 18 patients with consent and some family members and carers. We reviewed 14 patient records. We attended 2 ward rounds, 2 safety huddles, 1 morning handover meeting and 1 child in crisis meeting (also known as the bronze meeting).

The inspection included a member of the medicines team. They visited the MacGregor ward and spoke with 2 pharmacists, a resuscitation officer, lead nurse for paediatrics and the associate chief nursing officer.

Updated 16 April 2026

We carried out this inspection to follow up on concerns where we served a Warning Notice following a focused inspection in March 2025. As well as responding to the Warning Notice we carried out a comprehensive inspection as the last comprehensive inspection took place in 2019.

The urgent and emergency care department consisted of the adult emergency department (ED), a separate paediatric emergency department for children (PED), and a minor injuries unit (MIU).

A team consisting of a1 CQC operations manager, 2 CQC inspectors, 2 CQC senior specialists, a CQC Pharmacist Specialist, and 3 specialist advisors visited the service on 20, 21 and 22 October 2025. We spoke to 68 staff (including doctors, nurses, healthcare assistance, managers, pharmacists, administrative staff, and housekeeping staff), 7 patients, and 2 relatives. We looked at 41 sets of patients notes and attended 5 meetings.

We rated safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led as good.

Safe has been rated as good. Safety was a priority for everyone, and leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. Where people raised concerns about safety, the primary response was to learn and improve. People were safe and protected and safeguarded. Leaders ensured there were enough skilled staff to delivery safe care that promoted people’s wellbeing.

Effective has been rated as good. Staff worked towards giving people and communities the best possible outcomes by assuring their needs were assessed. Their care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics. Services worked in harmony, with people at the centre of their care. Leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of everyday work.

Caring has been rated good. This was because people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. People understood that they mattered and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. Their privacy and dignity was respected. Every effort was made to take their wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

Responsive has been rated as good. People and communities were at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. The health and care needs of people and communities were understood. Staff were working towards improving access to care in ways that met the diverse needs of communities.

Well-led has been rated good. The service had strong governance structures that were used to improve the performance of the service and ensured the delivery of safe care and treatment. There was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement. This was based on meeting the needs of people who use services and wider communities. Leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was integrated, person-centered and sustainable, and reduced inequalities.

Updated 28 March 2017

The service demonstrated a good track record on safety with low rates of infection and avoidable harm to patients.

Patient outcomes reported within ICNARC showed the service performed as expected, or better than expected for most outcomes when compared to other similar critical care services.

Staff understood and spoke positively about the safety reporting system in place, and felt that openness and transparency about safety was encouraged.

Staffing levels were compliant with Guidelines for the provision of intensive care services, 2015 ( (the core standards) with staffing levels and skill mix planned, implemented and reviewed to keep people safe at all times.

There were clear policies, procedures and training in place to enable staff to keep people safe and safeguarded from abuse.

The environment was clean and well organised, and we saw good compliance with infection prevention and control practices.

Risks to people who used the service were assessed, monitored and managed on a day-to day basis.

Care and treatment was delivered in accordance with best practice and recognised guidance and standards.

There was collaborative working amongst the multi-disciplinary team, and with other services and providers.

Staff had the right qualifications, skills, knowledge and experience to do their job and were supported through appraisal, supervision, training and revalidation.

Patients and those close to them spoke positively about their care and treatment, and felt supported and cared for by staff.

There were clear processes in place for people to raise concerns or complain; these were low in number and managed in a timely manner.

The nursing leadership team were knowledgeable about quality issues and priorities, and took action to address the challenges; there was alignment between the recorded risks and concerns raised by staff.

Staff satisfaction was high and staff felt engaged with the service leaders.

Updated 19 July 2023

Updated 28 March 2017

Performance data showed a good track record in safety.

Clinical areas were generally clean and well-organised. Medical records were maintained accurately and securely, and there was an effective records tracking and location system.

Infection control procedures were followed and the service conducted regular audits.

There were robust systems in place to ensure that patients and staff were protected by adherence to national guidelines relating to ionising radiation and diagnostic imaging.

The service had a system in place to recognise and respond to changes in patient’s health.

There was evidence that patients were told when things went wrong and offered an apology.

There were systems in place to ensure the right patient received the correct diagnostic procedure.

Staff were recognising, resolving and discussing incidents but not always recording them in line with trust policy, this meant that learning from incidents was not always shared.

Not all staff had the appropriate level of training for safeguarding children.

Updated 28 March 2017

There was a culture of incident reporting and staff said they received feedback and learning from serious incidents. However, some staff did not always receive feedback on all clinical incidents. Staff were able to speak openly about issues and serious incidents.

The environment was visibly clean and generally staff followed the trust policy on infection control, although, we saw no evidence of domestic staff using cleaning checklists.

Medical staffing was appropriate and there were good emergency cover arrangements. Consultant-led, seven-day services had been developed and were embedded into the service.

Staffing levels were planned and reviewed to ensure that patients received safe care and treatment. Agency and bank staff were used and sometimes staff worked additional hours to cover shifts but this was well managed and patients’ needs were met at the time of the inspection.

Treatment and care were provided in accordance with evidence-based national guidelines. There was good practice, for example, assessments of patient needs, monitoring of nutrition and falls risk assessments. Multidisciplinary working was effective.

Patients outcomes were generally good but not all staff were aware of patients’ outcomes relating to national audits or performance measures.

Most staff had received annual appraisals and support systems for staff development were effective, however there were areas of poor compliance with mandatory training.

Staff had awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) procedures to keep people safe.

The consent process commenced in outpatients, there were specific consent clinics and consent was reconfirmed at the time of admission.

Patients told us that staff treated them in a caring way, and they were kept informed and involved in the treatment received. We saw patients being treated with dignity and respect.

Patient care records were appropriately completed with sufficient detail and kept securely.

The service had an effective complaints system in place and learning was evident.

There was support for people with a learning disability and reasonable adjustments were made to the service. However information leaflets and consent forms were not available in other languages. An interpreting service was available and used.

Surgical services were well-led. Senior staff were visible on the wards and theatre areas and staff appreciated this support. There was generally a good awareness amongst staff of the trust’s values.