King's Mill Hospital

Updated 15 July 2026

Date of inspection: 9 to 10 March 2026. Kings Mill Hospital provides a range of NHS hospital services. This inspection looked at medical and urgent and emergency care services as part of our winter system pressure inspections. We rated both services as good. The ratings of medical and urgent and emergency care services 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 Kings Mill Hospital. The rating of Kings Mill Hospital has changed to good. In our inspection of medical services, we found that there was a positive and proactive culture of openness and honesty about safety. Concerns were fully investigated and lessons were learnt. The service delivered evidence based care and monitored outcomes. They treated people with kindness and compassion. Staff morale was mixed with some feeling supported and others feeling their views were not listened too and they were not always included in decisions made. In urgent and emergency care services we found that there was a positive learning safety culture where events were investigated, and learning was shared and embedded to promote good practice. Patients could not always access care and treatment in the department in a timely manner due to multiple issues including flow issues throughout the hospital. However, the service was aware of system pressures and sought to develop services that met the changing needs of patients.

Updated 11 February 2026

We carried out this inspection as part of our winter pressures assessment; it had last been inspected in August 2018.

We assessed most 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.

We identified a breach of the regulation due to lack of patients monitoring and observation following administration of sedation medication.

Updated 31 July 2024

Date of assessment 10 September 2024.

We carried out this assessment following information of concern around care of deteriorating patients and management of sepsis. We inspected 8 quality statements across the safe, effective and well-led key questions and have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last inspection to give the rating. There was a good safety culture where events were investigated, and learning was embedded to promote good practice. Staff provided safe care and treatment, and the environment appeared safe and well maintained. When the department was busy, leaders increased staffing levels to meet the needs of their patients. People could now mostly access care and treatment when they needed it. The department and staff were well-led by leaders who embodied the cultures and values of their workforce. There was improved governance and risk management, and a positive environment for shared learning.

Updated 14 May 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.
• Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.
• The service used systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines.
• The service managed patient safety incidents well. Staff recognised incidents and near misses and reported them appropriately. Managers investigated incidents and shared lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service. When things went wrong, staff apologised and gave children, young people and their families honest information and suitable support. Managers ensured that actions from patient safety alerts were implemented and monitored.
• Staff monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment. They used the findings to make improvements and achieved good outcomes for patients. The service had been accredited under relevant clinical accreditation schemes.
• Staff gave children, young people and their families practical support and advice to lead healthier lives.
• Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. They followed national guidance to gain patients consent. They knew how to support patients who lacked capacity to make their own decisions or were experiencing mental ill health. They used measures that limit patients' liberty appropriately.
• Staff provided emotional support to children, young people and their families to minimise their distress. They understood children and young people’s personal, cultural and religious needs.
• Staff supported and involved children, young people and their families to understand their condition and make decisions about their care and treatment. They ensured a family centred approach.
• The service was inclusive and took account of children, young people and their family’s individual needs and preferences. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. They coordinated care with other services and providers.
• People could access the service when they needed it and received the right care promptly. Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge children and young people were in line with national standards.
• Leaders had the integrity, 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 staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, equality groups, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. They collaborated with partner organisations to help improve services for patients.
• All staff were committed to continually learning and improving services. They had a good understanding of quality improvement methods and the skills to use them. Leaders encouraged innovation and participation in research.

Updated 14 May 2020

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, they truly respected their privacy and dignity, took a holistic approach to meeting their individual needs, with a strong, visible patient centred culture. Staff helped them understand their conditions and provided information tailored to the individual. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers. Feedback was consistently positive about the way they had been treated.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 15 August 2018

We previously inspected diagnostic imaging jointly with outpatients so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings. We rated it as good because:

• The radiology department was well supported through a service level agreement by a team of medical physics experts who monitored radiation levels received by staff and patients as well as auditing of compliance against national radiation regulations.
• The radiology department conducted audits of clinical practise as well as operational performance against national standards where available and benchmarked themselves against other trusts locally and nationally.
• Role development of radiographers and sonographers was actively encouraged and well supported by radiologists.
• The management team in radiology was effectively managing staffing vacancies, and had managed to attract staff despite the national occupational shortages.
• Performance and operations were well monitored in the radiology department. Senior staff were aware of up to date statistics via regular meetings, scorecards and weekly emails.

However:

• Radiographers did not consistently check pregnancy status of women of child bearing age as per local procedures.
• Inpatients attending the radiology department for examinations did not always have their notes transported with them. This meant that staff would not be aware of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) order or falls risk assessment.
• The MRI department was only seeing up to 40% of suspected cancer patients within the trust’s target of seven days.
• X-ray images were having to be outsourced to a tele-radiology company as the department was struggling to meet their key performance indicators.
• Document control in the x-ray departments was poor, and we found outdated or old versions of documents which staff were referring to. This was because the shared computer drive which held the most up to date policies and procedures was difficult to navigate.

Updated 15 August 2018

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• Staff understood their roles and responsibilities regarding the safeguarding of vulnerable adults and children. All staff we spoke with had received appropriate levels of safeguarding and could describe what safeguarding was and the process to refer alerts.
• There were comprehensive risk assessments completed in the medical and nursing notes. These were commenced on admission and there was evidence that risk assessments continued throughout the patient’s stay in hospital.
• We saw good examples of multidisciplinary working and involvement of other agencies and support services.
• There was good team working between the specialist palliative care team, the bereavement service and the chaplaincy service. The chaplaincy team was an integrated part of the overall delivery of care to the dying patient.
• Patients and their relatives told us they were fully included in discussions around their plan of care.
• Data provided by the trust showed that there were no complaints related to end of life care between January 2017 and December 2017.
• There was a newly appointed non-executive director for end of life care at board level.

However;

• Some of the Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) orders known as Allow a natural death forms (AND) we viewed were not completed properly and did not reflect the information included in the patient’s mental capacity assessment.

Updated 23 February 2023

Updated 15 August 2018

We previously inspected outpatients jointly with diagnostic imaging so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings.

We rated it as good because:

• Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:
• There was a positive incident reporting culture with evidence of learning and sharing following incident investigations.
• Mandatory training and appraisal rates exceeded the trust target.
• Staffing levels showed minimum vacancies and a low staff turnover rate.
• Staff complied with infection prevention guidelines.
• There was efficient medical records management with over 98% availability for all outpatient clinics.
• Medicines were stored in line with local and national guidance.
• Policies, protocols and patient pathways were based on national guidance.
• Staff were suitably qualified and trained to carry out their roles within the outpatient environment.
• Appraisal rates were 100% throughout the department.
• Specialities were involved in local networks for sharing best practice,
• We saw evidence of multidisciplinary working.
• We received consistently positive feedback from patients
• We observed positive interactions between staff and patients.
• There were opportunities for patients to receive psychological support when receiving bad news.
• There was an ethos of open leadership with senior management becoming more visible throughout the trust.
• Local management had a strong influence, enabling staff make comments and suggestions for improvement.
• Medical records had undergone a reorganisation over the previous two years resulting in over 98% records availability across the trust.
• There was a clear vision and strategy.
• Governance practices were cascaded down throughout the department with information shared at all levels.
• There had been positive engagement with staff, reflected in the staff survey response rate and outcomes.

Updated 14 May 2020

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

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.