Scunthorpe General 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. We saw evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. People can access care in ways that meet their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

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.

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.

We saw a consistent approach to the completion of risk assessments. We saw staff completing appropriate risk assessments and documenting appropriately.

We found a consistent approach to the recording of care within patient notes. We reviewed 10 sets of patient notes and saw examples of care plans that evidenced patient needs.

People we spoke to told us nursing staff treated them as individuals, took time to listen to their needs, and were kind and caring.

Staff provided emotional support during difficult times, such as when patients and/or relatives received bad news. Staff explained how they can utilise space within the department to facilitate private and sensitive conversations. The department also had access to specialised teams such as dementia specialist nurses, safeguarding and learning disability.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The department proactively supported care quality across multiple domains. Senior leaders acknowledged they had a high number of patients presenting at the department, all staff members we spoke with felt like collaborative working was done well within the service and contributed to optimising flow. Department leaders collaboratively worked to strengthen care co-ordination by working closely with other services to secure the appropriate specialist provision.

The department had regular multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meetings that included therapy staff. We observed MDT meetings and saw they addressed individual patient circumstance and where appropriate, input was organised from the different specialties to contribute to patient care, and to patient flow within the department. All staff we spoke to reported good working relationships and positive outcomes for patients because of this.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The department maintained a good standard of general information access. Areas within the department were clearly displayed.

The department staff were proactive in ensuring inclusive communication for all patients, particularly those with additional needs. Staff had access to interpreting and advocacy services and ensured patient information was available in different formats.

The trust used a website to inform the public and ensured patients accessed the most appropriate level of care. For example, the trust’s website provided detailed information aimed at helping the public choose the right healthcare service for their needs. This included guidance on when to use services other than the emergency department.

All staff were able to describe how they made notifications to external bodies such as the local authority for safeguarding issues and to the UK Health Security Agency for notifiable illnesses.

Computers were routinely locked when not in use, and any other patient information that was paper based was not on display.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on how to raise a complaint. Information was readily available throughout all patient areas. There was a direct phone line to Patient Advocacy and Liaison service (PALS).

Information in the department was also available by scanning QR codes with mobile phones. The information provided was in a form accessible to the patient groups such as easy-read format and other languages.

Staff ensured carers and families were regularly updated about the patient’s progress. The most recent friends and family test result showed that 74% of patients in December 2025 had a positive experience in the department.

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.

There was a Complaints and Concerns Policy which detailed the departments framework for managing and learning from complaints. All complaints were logged using the trust’s incident reporting system. We saw evidence that leaders monitored complaint responses. Staff were able to explain the complaints process.

The service used complaint themes to drive improvements and embedded patient feedback into daily operational learning. We saw learning being shared in board meetings. Complaint themes, including treatment, values and behaviour and long waiting times, were fed back to the team through meetings and email.

We saw examples of complaints being raised in monthly governance meetings. We saw timely responses and apologies when required. Staff we spoke with understood duty of candour and gave examples of when this was applied. There was a culture of being receptive to negative feedback and staff told us they saw this as an opportunity to learn and to improve.

The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The average time to triage from July 2025 to December 2025 was 42 minutes which did not meet the national target of 15 minutes.

The average percentage of patients admitted, transferred or discharged within four hours of arrival at the trust was 73% from July 2025 to December 2025 which was lower than the national average.

Data showed the average amount of patients who required admission waited over 4 hours but less than 12 hours from July 2025 to December 2025 was 696.

The average amount of patients leaving the department from July 2025 to December 2025 was 145.

The number of patients waiting in excess of 12 hours from decision to admit was an average of 346.

The unplanned reattendance rate between July 2025 and December 2025 was an average of 2%, which was lower than the national average.

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.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. We saw a proactive approach across all staff grades within the department to encourage feedback from all patients. They used a variety of tools to ensure all patients were given equal opportunity to raise concerns and for that information to be used.

Equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights training was offered to all staff and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the principles. For example, staff told us ensuring that dignity and autonomy were respected were important values of the department and were embedded in the culture.

Staff described the practical adjustments in the new department which supported delivering safer care to all patients, for example higher visibility premises, for the older population.

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.

We saw examples of staff supporting patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. We saw the use of treatment escalation plans which were completed with patients.

Staff were able to articulate how they would care for people who are nearing the end of their life and how they would ensure that it was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. We observed patients being referred to appropriate specialities.