King's Mill 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 looked for 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. We also 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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.

Most patients we spoke with told us that they felt they were at the centre of their care and treatment. Patients felt involved in planning and making shared decisions about their care and treatment. In the UEC Survey 2024, in relation to the question, ‘were you involved as much as you wanted to be in the decisions about your care and treatment’, the hospital scored about the same as the national average.

Patients and their relatives told us staff could not do enough for them. Even when they were visibly busy, people told us staff took time to talk to people and understand what patients needed.

Staff told us they took in to account patient’s individual needs and preferences. They told us they undertook risk assessments to identify specific needs such as nutrition, hydration, mobility, falls risk and frailty score. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access services. The department had access to interpretation services including British Sign Language to support patients, loved ones and carers with face-to-face interpreting and translation needs. There was a multi-faith room on-site for staff and patients with a chaplain team available to visit bedside upon request.

Staff were sensitive to the dietary needs of patients. Staff requested food preferences from patients, Halal options were available. The emergency department (ED) was only able to supply cold food unless a senior member of staff requested a hot meal for patients who had been in the department for some time.

We saw positive interactions between staff and patients. Staff made sure patients living with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, received the necessary care to meet all their needs.

The trust used registered mental health nurses to add to its staffing to ensure that patients requiring this support had access to person centred care. A senior nurse took the lead on the quality improvement programme for patients with a mental health need. A checklist and observation tool had been designed to ensure that only those patients who required one to one care for safety reasons received it. This protected the privacy and dignity of patients.

The environment of the Children’s ED was child-friendly including colourful walls and curtains. There was a sensory play area for younger children. A variety of toys were around to enable children to be kept occupied whilst waiting. Staff could request support from play specialists from the Children’s ward if required. Staff used distraction techniques to minimise stress and anxiety in children which included the use of electronic devices, audiobooks, playing with a toy and blowing bubbles.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service did not provide real time waiting information for patients arriving in the ED. There was no electronic board to tell patients how long it would be before they saw a doctor. Despite this, patients were triaged in a timely manner and clinical staff informed them of what would happen next. The UEC survey in 2024 showed that patients did not always feel that they were kept informed of waiting times at 2 patients out of 10 which was somewhat worse than other trusts. We spoke to patients and those that cared for them and they told us that they were not always sure about what was happening next.

Patients could access information and advice that was accurate, up-to-date and provided in a way that they could understand, and which met their communication needs. The service made reasonable adjustments and supported patients with accessible information. For example, staff told us they were able to provide information in multiple languages for adult patients.

Patients could use the hospitals website to gain information on many conditions. The website had an accessibility bar which allowed patients to make the font size larger and a button to change the contrast to make font appear sharper against the background in accordance with the Accessible Information Standard. However, there were no translation facilities on the website and information leaflets, although plentiful were only in English.

Computers were widely available throughout the department which meant that staff did not have to wait to access them. However, we  observed several unlocked and unattended computers displaying confidential patient information on the inspection. White boards displayed where patients were within the department and had some information about the patients. These were for staff and displayed in staff only areas within staff only areas such as the major’s area. Staff received General Data Protection Regulation training (GDPR). Compliance with this training was 86% as of March 2026. Some patient records were held on a secure electronic patient record system which was accessed by individual staff log in. However, paper records were also used and were stored in majors in an area by the central clinical station. Patients could not generally access this area.

Staff we spoke to explained they asked patients if they had any information or communication needs, this would be highlighted on paper and electronic record systems to alert staff. Staff told us they shared information about patient’s information and communication needs with other providers of NHS and adult social care, when patients had given consent or permission for them to do so. Several system partners such as 111 service used the same electronic patient record system so information could be shared easily.

Staff told us learning disabilities and autism passports were not frequently seen, however they were a helpful method of communication. The passport was often provided by the family of the patient. Information was copied and used to provide care. If staff required support, advice was always available from the Learning Disabilities Team.

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 clear signage in the waiting room for patients to raise a complaint. Staff were aware of the complaints process and provided examples of learning from patient complaints. For instance, there was patient feedback regarding the care of trauma patients and what to expect. A generic leaflet that gave patients and loved one’s information to help them when someone was brought in urgently suffering with a traumatic injury’ was available

The service sought feedback on the care and treatment of patients through the patient experience team. This team received compliments and complaints from patients and those that cared for them and shared them with the emergency team through an IT system. This then fed into the department’s dashboard. Complaints were sent to the divisional triumvirate (three managers of the wider division) for investigation. The senior leadership team led on investigating the complaint and compiling a response. Where there was a cross-service complaint the patient experience team coordinated the responses from the individual services. There were weekly meetings about the complaints and where in the timeline the responses were at. Action plans are developed and monitored by the senior leadership team.

Patient stories are shared with the staff of the ED to highlight learning from them. The patient engagement team facilitated a patient engagement committee which meets quarterly. Investigations are undertaken and action plans drawn up which are shared at these meetings. Every department is represented and shared information on the patient experience to help learning. A biannual report is produced. In the report for April to September 2025 the ED received the highest number of complaints across the trust (25). The ED has a newsletter sent to all staff which highlights themes, trends and actions to be taken in respect of action plans devised.

There were 9 complaints about the care in ED in January 2026. Only 40% of complaints were responded to in the given timeframe. The department had 77% of actions outstanding in the February report from the patient experience team. Themes of complaints centred around delays in treatment and care, communications and staff attitudes. This information has been reviewed alongside other factors which could contribute to a rise in complaints. The national friends and family test results for January were 92% positive. This was driven from a response by 8000 patients. There were service improvement meetings in place to ensure that staff and leaders were aware of the issues.

Patients we spoke to felt confident to raise a complaint should they need to. Most patients were complimentary for the care and attention that they had been provided with. Patients accepted that services were under strain and that waiting was inevitable. Patients and those close to them felt involved in the decisions made whilst in the ED.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff worked hard to provide equity in access to care and treatment. This included making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, those with communication difficulties or cognitive impairment. Patients were listened to when they wanted to share their experience. For example, one patient told us that staff in the ED were the first people to listen to them and arranged appropriate follow up with a specialist team.

The department was open 24 hours a day all year round. Adults and children were cared for including those seeking treatment for mental ill health. The service worked with other healthcare professionals to provide a timely service for different healthcare needs and serious conditions needing specialist input. The service had policies and procedures for escalation and care of patients in non-designated areas (temporary escalation areas), to reduce the main risks from crowding. One of these areas was the main major’s area which had standard bays around 3 edges of a square. The escalation was to place 2 patients in a bay and the to put patients into the centre of the square. This made the area very congested and reduced patients’ privacy. The hospital had processes to monitor performance and quality against national targets and standards.

People had timely access to test results and diagnosis. We saw that electrocardiography’s (ECGs) were performed by triage staff and reviewed in a timely way by doctors where an issue was highlighted. ECGs are a test to record the electrical signals in the heart.

There were monthly emergency medicine clinical governance meetings. These meetings enabled service leaders and other key personnel to understand, monitor and assess the quality and performance. This meant appropriate action could be taken when performance against set targets deteriorated.

In February 2026 62% of type 1 patients waited four hours or less to be seen treated in the ED. Type 1 patients are those who are most seriously ill. The numbers of patients waiting less than four hours was 72% this was slightly below the England average of 74%. However, very few patients waited longer than 12 hours in the department (365) in February 2026.

Patient surveys indicated patients would like to see improvement to how quickly they could access the ED. In the 2024 National Urgent & Emergency Care survey the trust ranked about the same as other trusts overall. The patient experience was best for questions around the information given by the clinical staff, their overall experience and feeling safe within the department. Areas which required some further work included information on further health or social care support at home and waiting times.

The most recent data provided by the trust showed in February 2026, 100% of patients with urgent mental health needs were seen in parallel by an appropriate mental health clinician and ED clinician. However, the average time to see a doctor for these patients was 122 minutes. There were action plans in place to reduce this waiting time.

The hospital had processes to monitor inter-specialty reviews and referrals to identify delays in patients being reviewed following referral to specialisms such as medicine and surgery. Staff reported good working arrangements between specialities.

There was signage at the ED front door that stated patients would be treated according to the severity of their condition. The triage team numbers could be increased in line with activity throughout the day. This meant that patients awaiting further assessment or testing were seen as soon as possible.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.