Epsom 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

Patients understood their care options, were able to ask questions, and received reasonable adjustments, including tailored therapy discussions and coordinated discharge planning.

The service provided accurate, accessible information and adapted communication methods for people with disabilities, language needs, or limited digital literacy.

People felt listened to, found staff responsive and respectful of cultural and religious needs, and knew how to give feedback or make complaints; learning from complaints was routinely shared with staff.

Staff helped people plan for future care, including end‑of‑life decisions, using tools like advance care planning and ReSPECT forms, with evidence of discussions about do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) recorded appropriately.

The service placed people at the centre of their care.

In addition, access to care was affected by long waits, high bed occupancy (consistently above the 92% NHS target), long lengths of stay, and significant delayed discharge days, often caused by unmet social care or housing 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 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 understood their care options and felt they had been conveyed to them in a way they understood. They told us they had had the opportunity to ask questions about their care.

Patients could receive the most appropriate care and treatment for them as the service made reasonable adjustments where necessary. For example, stroke patients in Mary Seacole Ward had discussions with therapies staff regarding what a successful outcome for that individual patient would look like and they worked with the patient to achieve that outcome where possible.

Therapy staff engaged with patients and their families, to discuss discharge plans. Plans were communicated with the multidisciplinary team daily at ward round to effectively discharge plan and try to reduce delays.

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

Staff gave patients, their families, and carers information that was easy to understand, in a format that was accessible to them, and that supported their rights and choices. Patients were given the information they needed about their condition, treatment, and any follow‑up care, which meant people could understand their treatment and make informed decisions.

The service used an electronic patient record system, staff used secure card access to access the electronic patient records. We saw staff log off from the computer terminals they had been using when they finished updating or accessing patient notes, which helped protect people’s personal information.

Patient’s individual needs for accessible information were identified, recorded, highlighted, and shared. This included making reasonable adjustments for disabled people, providing interpreters or translations for patients who did not speak English as a first language. Patients who had difficulty reading, writing, or using digital services were also helped with information in formats they could use.

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 were on the whole positive about their experience in the hospital. They spoke highly of the staff and told us they felt listened to and staff were responsive.

Staff spent time with patients simply talking and using the activities area for those patients on the Mary Seacole frailty unit. Staff knew how to meet patients' needs respectfully and with consideration to cultural or religious needs.

This service’s discharge planning process worked well, and it was understood by the multidisciplinary teams.

All the patients and families we spoke with knew how to give feedback about their experiences of care including how to raise any concerns or issues and could do so in a range of accessible ways.

The service had a complaints policy that gave staff clear guidance on what steps to take when a patient raised a concern. Staff understood this policy and knew how to escalate complaints when needed. Patient information leaflets explained the complaints process and how to make a complaint, and these leaflets were available on the ward or on the trust’s website for patients to use.

Managers investigated complaints and identified common themes. They shared the findings with staff, and the learning was used to improve the service. When we reviewed complaint response letters, they showed the lessons that had been learned. For example, recognising the patient perspective, improving documentation and organising regular refresher training courses to ensure alignment with best practices.

Data provided by the trust following the assessment showed there were 246 complaints made in the 12 months preceding our assessment. Of which 161 were either upheld or partially upheld and 17 had been withdrawn. The themes were around staff attitude, admission, discharge and transfer arrangements, privacy, dignity and wellbeing and communication.

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.

People told us they had experienced long waits in the emergency department and in the SDEC unit prior to admission to medical care wards.

We reviewed trust data on bed occupancy rates for medical care in the hospital for the period June 2025 to November 2025. Data for June to November 2025 showed consistently high bed occupancy, ranging from 96.2% to 98.7%, which was above the NHS target of 92%.

The trust data covering average length of stay (LOS) for patients in general internal medicine, geriatric medicine, and respiratory medicine for the period June to November 2025. The trust did not break this data down by site, so this data covers both hospital sites. Length of stay (LOS) was also high across the specialities we reviewed. For general internal medicine, LOS ranged from 10.7 to 12.2 days. In geriatric medicine it ranged from 11.6 to 17.2 days, and in respiratory medicine from 8.7 to 28.0 days.

There were substantial numbers of delayed discharges. For general medicine there were 5598 delayed days during the period June to November 2025. For geriatric medicine the delayed days were 4183 days during the same period and for respiratory medicine the number was 529 delayed days. Discharge ready date is the date that a patient no longer met the ‘criteria to reside’ in a hospital bed. The numbers above show that they were significant numbers of patients who were delayed from being discharged from hospital when they were ready to go home.

The trust worked with local authorities within their geographical area to facilitate discharge from hospital. They monitored total discharges across their services, LOS and reasons for delay. Common reasons for delay were identified as patients awaiting new or increased care packages, social work assessments, housing environment and homelessness.

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.

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 were helped to make informed choices about their care and treatment. Staff referred them to specialist services when they needed ongoing care or follow‑up. Important information about patients care and treatment was shared with their GP on discharge.

The service used advance care planning to support people in deciding on their future care while they still had capacity. They had systems to support patients approaching the end of life, working closely with the end‑of‑life team to provide appropriate support.

Records indicated discussions had taken place with patients and families regarding their feelings on “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (DNACPR) and what was appropriate for that patient. We saw Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms that were appropriately completed. The ReSPECT process creates personalised recommendations for a patient’s clinical care and treatment in a possible future emergency in which they are unable to make or express choices. The service had access to palliative care services and were able to facilitate rapid discharge to allow patient to return to home to die if that was their preferred choice.