Scunthorpe General Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. We saw evidence that people and communities had positive outcomes because their needs were appropriately assessed. We saw that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We saw evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service used risk assessment tools which included tools for skin integrity assessments, falls, and pain monitoring. Staff told us that risk mitigations were put in place after risk assessments highlighted areas of concern. We saw that staff responded to the outcomes of patient risk assessments and adapted their approach to the changing needs of patients. For example, staff told us they used body maps to document a patient’s skin condition upon admission, we saw examples of body maps being completed and actions recorded for patients with pressure ulcers. Patients we spoke with told us they had been asked regularly about their pain and offered pain relief when required.

We observed staff completing care plans with patients and their families in a personalised way. Staff told us that they had access to picture cards for patients with verbal communication issues, and that there was access to translation services. The department did not have hearing loop access.

The department had a clear pathway for supporting people with mental health needs and staff documented level of risk. The service audited patient records who presented with mental health concerns, the audit for 2024 showed that 19% of patients who presented with a mental health concern were seen within the national target of 15 minutes. The national average for the same year was 31%.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

The department had systems to ensure patient care was based on the latest medical information. Staff told us they could access policies, procedures and guidance on the trust intranet. This included clinical guidelines National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM). This allowed staff to quickly reference standard pathways for patients.

Additionally, staff used an electronic system featuring evidence-based risk assessment templates such as sepsis screening. This meant patients received treatment that was consistent, reliable, and informed by current research. The department had demonstrated improvements in the sepsis pathways. For example, audits dated July 2025 to September 2025 showed the average time from triage to antibiotic delivery was 57 minutes which is below the target of 60 minutes.

The service participated in national benchmarking audits, such as the RCEM Time Critical Medications Audit. This audit focused on ensuring patients receive all expected time critical medications on time whilst in the department. The departments most recent data showed that 47% of time critical medications were delivered with a 30-minute window of their usual time, the national average was 34%. The percentage of doses administered (not missed) during patients stay withing the department was 87%. This is higher than the national average of 56%.

We observed effective teamwork in the department. Staff told us they had access to specialist teams within the hospital, including physiotherapists, occupational therapists, social workers, and dieticians.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The department worked well across teams and services to support patients’ needs. Staff across the hospital used formal and informal communication methods to coordinate care and manage patient flow. Daily huddles occurred which included site managers, matrons, and other key personnel to discuss patient flow and site status. Doctors held separate handovers 4 times daily to discuss critical patient information and plans.

Ambulance crews and hospital staff had an established handover process to help ensure safe patient transitions and meant nurses and doctors received all vital patient information, enabling them to provide appropriate care. Ambulance staff told us they had a good and collaborative relationship with the emergency department staff, which is reflective of what we observed.

Staff had access to the Mental Health Liaison Team meaning staff could be supported by mental health specialists when managing challenging mental health presentations.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives.

The department had multiple posters on walls, these posters had QR codes which took the user to information sources. Staff told us that they would discuss health promotion with patients if there was opportunity, but this was not consistently available due to pressures within the department.

There was a trust wide opt-out Hepatitis B and C screening in the emergency department. There were several posters throughout the department with information on this public health drive.

The service did not always consistently monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We were provided with an audit schedule that detailed a wide range of audit topics. Whilst the audits showed improving pictures, there were repeated issues highlighted and actions overdue. For example, patient weights not being recorded, a lack of ‘I am clean’ tape of communal equipment. The service is not meeting their 90% compliance target for manager and matron submissions of audits detailing quality standards.

The department held monthly governance and performance meetings to review patient outcomes. This constant monitoring allowed staff to regularly review and update patient care protocols and ensure the use of appropriate referral pathways.

The department measured its performance against national standards set by The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM). The latest audit collecting RCEM Care of Older People data showed the department performed above the national average. For example, 100% of patients in the audit were screened for frailty, compared to the national average of 56%. This meant outcomes for older patients were positive and consistent.

The RCEM Care of Older People data also included an audit of safety rounds. Safety rounds monitor key areas of care including, medications, observations, pressure areas and nutrition and hydration. The department performed higher than the national average in each area.

Patients who were referred to the mental health team were assessed and monitored.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We observed staff seeking consent from patients before providing any care or treatment. Staff had a good understanding of consent, including the difference between informed and implied consent. We reviewed four patient records where a concern about the patient’s ability to consent had been noted, and we found mental capacity assessments to be completed correctly. This meant patients’ rights were protected.

We saw examples of staff assessing patients' capacity and documenting it within the patient notes. All clinicians were able to describe how they would assess a patient with mental health issues including the appropriate risk assessment and referrals. Staff we spoke with were able to describe Mental Capacity principles and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The training data we requested for compliance in Mental Capacity Act Training had a target of 85%, it showed medical staff compliance was at 78% and nursing staff compliance was at 81% as of January 2026.