Goole & District Hospital

Updated 28 May 2026

Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust provide a comprehensive range of NHS hospital services for approximately 450,000 people living in the Grimsby, Scunthorpe and Goole region. The Trust has three hospitals sites with approximately 750 inpatient beds.

We carried out an assessment of the outpatient department at Goole and District Hospital. The assessment commenced with an unannounced visit on 10 and 11 February 2026 by two inspectors. The assessment focussed on thirty-three quality statements under the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led key questions. Following the assessment the outpatient department had an overall rating of good.

The rating of Goole and District Hospital outpatient department has been combined with the ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all the other services at Goole and District Hospital. The rating of Goole and District Hospital remains good.

We found continued breaches of regulation in relation to waiting times for new and follow up appointments, including performance against the national NHS 62-day cancer performance target. At this assessment we identified two breaches of regulations in relation to Safe care and treatment (Regulation 12) and Good Governance (Regulation 17).

Updated 30 September 2025

Goole and District Hospital outpatients department is part of Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust. The department is open Monday to Friday, with one evening clinic per week. In the 12 months before our assessment the department had 15,815 attendances. 14 specialities had clinics in Goole and District Hospital outpatients department.

Two Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspectors conducted an onsite assessment visit for outpatients between 10 to 11 February 2026. This was due to an aged rating.

We assessed all quality statements from the safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led key questions.

We spoke to 4 patients, 8 staff, 4 leaders and reviewed 3 sets of patient notes. We attended the safety meeting.

We rated the outpatient department at Goole and District Hospital as Good overall. This had not changed since our last assessment in December 2022.

Staff demonstrated kindness and compassion in the interactions we observed and the patients we spoke to felt listened to and treated as individuals. Leaders and staff told us there were enough staff to meet patients’ needs, and we saw examples of workplace wellbeing in practice. Staff worked well together to support each other and patients. However, evidence from staff discussions and incident reporting data indicated some staff lacked understanding of what should be reported as a patient safety event.

We found continued breaches of regulation in relation to waiting times for new and follow up appointments, including performance against the national NHS 62-day cancer performance target. At this assessment we identified two breaches of regulations in relation to Safe care and treatment (Regulation 12) and Good Governance (Regulation 17).

If we have requested an action plan, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.

Updated 7 February 2020

We previously inspected medical care services at this site under this trust and overall rated it as requires improvement with requires improvement in safe, effective and well-led, and good in caring and responsive.

At this inspection we rated the services as good because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.
• The service had enough nursing and medical staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed staffing levels and skill mix and gave bank and agency staff a full induction.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and near misses. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support. Managers ensured that actions from patient safety alerts were implemented and monitored.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Managers checked to make sure staff followed guidance.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development.
• Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patient’s consent. They knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.
• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff. The service included patients in the investigation of their complaint.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
• Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and identified actions to reduce their impact. They had plans to cope with unexpected events. Staff contributed to decision-making to help avoid financial pressures compromising the quality of care.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear.

However:

• Compliance rates for mandatory training for medical staff were poor. The 85% target was not met for any of the ten modules. We saw the trust had an action plan to improve compliance. The plan was medical staff would be compliant by November 2019.

Updated 2 December 2022

Updated 22 March 2024

Updated 7 February 2020

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.
• The service had enough nursing and medical staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed staffing levels and skill mix and gave bank and agency staff a full induction.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and near misses. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave patients honest information and suitable support. Managers ensured that actions from patient safety alerts were implemented and monitored.
• The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence-based practice. Managers checked to make sure staff followed guidance.
• The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and development.
• Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patient’s consent. They knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health. They used agreed personalised measures that limit patients' liberty.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, and took account of their individual needs.
• The service was inclusive and took account of patients’ individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.
• It was easy for people to give feedback and raise concerns about care received. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and shared lessons learned with all staff. The service included patients in the investigation of their complaint.
• Leaders had the skills and abilities to run the service. They understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. They were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. They supported staff to develop their skills and take on more senior roles.
• Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance effectively. They identified and escalated relevant risks and issues and identified actions to reduce their impact. They had plans to cope with unexpected events. Staff contributed to decision-making to help avoid financial pressures compromising the quality of care.
• Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. The service promoted equality and diversity in daily work and provided opportunities for career development. The service had an open culture where patients, their families and staff could raise concerns without fear.

However:

• In theatres some equipment had gaps in its checking regime. While staff explained this was due to theatres being closed on those days, the system for recording this needed to be improved.
• In theatre recovery and prior to transfer back to a ward, staff were not totalling their observation scores to create a national early warning score (NEWS) score, for use by ward staff. This did not appear to comply with the trust’s policy. We raised this with staff and were told the issue would be addressed.
• Even though it was clear the trust was going through a further period of change, it was noted that a clearly defined plan, with approved budgets and milestones, to realise the ambition for surgery at the Goole site, was still in progress.
• While the overall governance system functioned, we did find instances in the evidence we reviewed that suggested governance needed tightening up. For example, in theatres at Goole, the new form used in theatres recovery was released for use by staff even though key information was missing from the form. In theatres, NEWS totals were not being calculated for sharing on handover to ward staff. This was arguably in non-compliance with the trust’s own policy in this area. In ward areas, for instance, one surgical healthcare team were not completing the space provided on the consent form for re-consenting the patient on the day of the procedure.
• While staff did have access to information to manage their service, various sources of information we reviewed suggested that data management and reliability were an issue for the trust.
• For the surgery division at the Goole site, we saw little evidence of learning, continuous improvement and innovation.