Goole & District Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed 7 quality statements from this key question. We looked for evidence that people were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked the health and care needs of people were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We found continued breaches in waiting times, including performance against the 18-week referral-to-treatment (RTT) standard for new appointments and the NHS 62-day cancer standard.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients told us they could ask questions at their visit. Patients told us staff met their individual needs, offered helpful support, and provided excellent care.

Staff could provide examples of how they had based patient care around individual needs and preferences.

Staff told us how they supported a neurodiverse patient who preferred to wait in their car until the doctor was ready in clinic to see them.

Staff could arrange prayer room access for patients who needed one whilst awaiting their appointment.

Staff and leaders told us many patients were regulars at the service and staff had got to know them well.

Staff told us how they empowered patients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. For example, staff took time to explain next steps to patients unsure about their proposed plan for treatment. This helped them with their decision making.

The department had been adapted to meet the needs of patients with dementia, people in wheelchairs and children. For example, we saw blue dementia friendly signs, designated wheelchair waiting zones and a children’s waiting corner.

Patients could have their digital outpatient letters translated into more than 100 languages, read aloud in over 40 languages, magnified, or converted into pictorial formats to support their needs.

All interactions we observed between staff and patients were kind, caring, compassionate and person-centred.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Patients told us at times the service had not met the needs of the local population. However, patients told us the clinics provided were excellent and easy to get to.

Services provided had been reduced over time with the expectation people would need to travel further to larger locations to get the service they required.

Staff confirmed outpatient clinics had been reduced and had not returned to pre-Covid-19 numbers.

Leaders told us they worked with the local ICB, service users and wider trust managers to review the services provided to maximise clinical capacity and activity onsite. NHS Humber and North Yorkshire ICB held a listening event shortly before our assessment. This confirmed patients greatly valued the hospital, its staff, accessibility and quality of care it provided.

Leaders told us 17% of outpatient appointments were virtual, with the patient sitting in their own home and speaking to the doctor by phone or video. This increased flexibility and convenience and reduced patient’s need for travel.

Receptionists contacted patients who did not attend their clinic appointment by telephone. If the patient consented the receptionist transferred the call to the doctor for a phone consultation. This provided continuity and effective use of resources.

Leaders told us they were looking at patient initiated follow up (PIFU), digital doctor rollout, increased virtual clinics and alternative care pathways. This would reduce the need for follow-up appointments. PIFU is when a patient initiates an appointment when they need one, based on their symptoms and individual circumstances.

Leaders used clinical utilisation processes to ensure clinics were booked in advance. Booking staff scheduled patients’ appointments early, and planned resources ahead of time, which supported continuity.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us the department was clearly signposted, staff were very helpful, and all information required had been provided.

Staff told us how they provided verbal information to patients. Staff welcomed patients to clinic, gave them their name, explained what was happening and who they were seeing. Staff said they would apologise if the clinic was running late and discuss with patients if they needed to rebook the appointment for another time.

Leaders told us how they would signpost patients who wished to complain. We saw posters and leaflets visible in the department which explained the complaints process.

The service could provide information in an accessible format to some patient groups. For example, patients using the digital letter portal could have their letters translated into different languages, and the wording could be amended to support their understanding.

Patient letters included a sentence asking them to contact the hospital before their appointment so interpreting services could be provided, if needed.

However, we saw no information leaflets in languages other than English within the department. Leaders told us the hospital had established a task and finish group to align the content and accessibility of leaflets for patients.

We saw patient information leaflets both in printed format and via a QR code. We saw posters signposting patients to local support groups.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients told us staff listened to them and communicated with them in a way they could understand.

Staff and leaders could explain the process for supporting patients and staff when a complaint was received.

The service had received no complaints in the 12 months before our assessment. We saw poster information on how patients could complain.

Leaders described the last complaint received by the department. This was around waiting times in clinic. In response, the team introduced a new process where staff informed patients when clinics were running late.

Whilst we were on site two clinics were running late. We did not see staff informing patients or any notification on the board.

One clinic provided patients with a specialty-specific questionnaire to complete. This ensured clinical staff obtained all key medical and background information to review with the patient at their appointment.

Clinicians we observed clearly explained any risks, benefits and side effects involved with medications patients were already taking, or they advised they take.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Some patients told us they were seen promptly.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. For example, patients with mobility issues had designated areas to sit. Patients with therapeutic dogs were accommodated in clinic.

Leaders described how the service reviewed waiting lists and clinical availability. They ensured there were enough clinics to help reduce waiting times, maximise rooms and staffing resource. To facilitate additional clinics, departments could request extra staff above their clinical establishment.

We reviewed referral to treatment (RTT) data as part of our assessment. The data could not be broken down to site specific (Goole and District Hospital) but covered the whole of Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust (NLAG). The Trust RTT waiting list volume was 39,294 as of February 2026. This was better than the services had planned. 66.1% of cancer patients were treated within 62 days. This was below national target of 85% of patients treated within this timeframe.

For the whole of the Trust, 58.3% of new patients were seen within 18 weeks, the national standard is 92%. Waiting lists had grown since our last assessment in December 2022 when we also identified these breaches.

The department saw 15 815 attendances in the 12 months before our assessment. 4,489 were new patients and 11,326 were follow up appointments. 5.2% of patients did not attend their appointment. This was only slightly above the hospital’s planned rate. 14.7% of patients cancelled their appointment. 11.6% of appointments were cancelled by the service, which was higher than the national average.

To support equity in access the service had one evening clinic a week with the diagnostic imaging department., This meant patients did not have to attend for x-rays on a different day.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Patients could feedback their views through the friends and family survey. Leaders shared the survey results at the staff daily huddle. Patients were empowered to tell the staff when things were not right. For example, one patient had told the staff the waiting area chairs were not suitable for all patients. The service had arranged a different range of chairs to suit all patients attending.

Patients had shared their views with the wider ICB and local community to save the hospital from closure in the year before our assessment. Their mission was also to safeguard vital healthcare services for future generations.

Staff and leaders could tell us about the different resources available for neurodivergent and dementia outpatients who attended clinics. For example, staff could offer quieter waiting areas or move patients to the front of the queue so they could be seen more promptly.

We saw many posters and leaflets to support all patients including for carers and dementia patients.

The paediatric waiting area had size appropriate furniture and activities and blue door signs with pictorial representation were in place for dementia patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Patients told us staff were very helpful and informative.

Staff told us how they supported patients to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care. Staff attended all outpatient clinics with the patients, listening and supporting them and doctors.

Staff could describe the process for referring patients to relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies to help support and plan the care and treatment.