- NHS hospital
William Harvey Hospital
Assessment report published 10 July 2026
Contents
Ratings - Urgent and emergency services
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 02 to 03 February 2026.
The Urgent and Emergency Care (UEC) service at William Harvey Hospital (WHH) forms part of East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust. The UEC included a Clinical Decision unit, Rapid Assessment and Treatment (RAT) area, GP services and Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) services to ensure patients are directed to the most appropriate setting based on clinical need.
We previously inspected the emergency department at William Harvey Hospital in March 2020 and imposed conditions to registration relating to the emergency department. The conditions were removed on 29 March 2021 following improvements made by the trust. We also carried out an inspection of the UEC service in 2023 although we did not rate this inspection we found 5 breaches in regulation. These related to safe care and treatment, staffing, dignity and respect and premises and equipment.
We carried out an unannounced assessment of the UEC services at William Harvey Hospital on 02 to 03 February 2026. This assessment was in response to information of concern we received, to follow up on past breaches in regulation and the associated with risk within the service.
The rating for UEC has been combined with ratings of the other services from the last assessments. The rating of WHH remains requires improvement overall.
At this assessment we inspected this service using our single assessment framework and looked at all the key questions and all quality statements.
We reviewed a range of data on-site and offsite including policies, audits, and standard operating procedure (SOP)s. We also reviewed contacts to our website and concerns information throughout the assessment period.
We spoke with 21 patients and 6 relatives/carers. We reviewed 12 patient records. We spoke with more than 38 staff which included: consultants, resident doctors, nurses across several bands, mental health nurses, matrons, senior leaders, support workers, administration staff, pharmacists, housekeeping staff, and student nurses.
Although we saw improvements during this assessment we identified multiple breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and 1 breach in relation to dignity and respect. Although the service had made improvements since our last visit (some breaches had been addressed) further improvements were required.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
There was crowding in the department with patients staying for extended periods in the department awaiting a ward placement. This included extended periods in environments that were not intended for patient care.
The use of temporary escalation areas did not offer privacy and dignity. We saw delays in triage and monitoring of patients including long waits for medical reviews. Medicines were not always managed well and governance systems were in place but not always effective.
However, staff followed infection, prevention and control procedures when carrying out their work. The service carried out regular audits, including monitoring against the emergency care standards. We observed staff offering compassionate care to patients and patients we spoke with were positive about the care they received. Most staff were positive about where they worked.
People's experience of this service
Patients and any family or carers with them were mostly positive about the staff treating them with warmth and kindness and providing effective care and treatment. However, patients in temporary escalation areas were unhappy with the level of privacy and length of time in these areas. We spoke with 21 patients and 6 relatives/carers on site and reviewed information from a range of sources including the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT). The FFT is an important tool to help people who use NHS services have the opportunity to provide feedback on their experience.
Patients had access to contribute and feedback about their experiences through a QR code and every patient received a letter explaining wait times and escalation corridor care. Within this letter there was a contact number and email address to raise concerns.
Patients said they were seen by trained staff when they arrived and were asked appropriate questions to find out more about why they had attended UEC. Records we reviewed showed patients were given the tests they needed although there were sometimes delays in accessing scans.
Although care was being delivered in non-clinical areas (corridor care), we observed staff engaging with patients in these areas and offering apologies for delays. Some patient feedback we received indicated that the care in escalation areas caused patients to feel forgotten at times, however, many also acknowledged that staff were doing their best in challenging circumstances.