Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother 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.

Overall, the service delivered good, person‑centred care, with patients actively involved in decisions and positive feedback about staff compassion and professionalism. Strong multidisciplinary working, accessible information, and inclusive practices supported patient needs, including those experiencing health inequalities.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We saw multiple examples of how staff within the service had based patient care around individual needs and preferences. Patients we spoke with knew their plan of care and planned discharge date. They told us doctors and nurses checked their understanding of what was happening and took the time to find out what was important to them.

Staff were experienced in caring for patients living with dementia or who were experiencing temporary delirium. Delirium is a sudden, temporary state of acute confusion, disorientation, and altered mental state often triggered by physical illness, infection, surgery, or medication, particularly in older or frail patients.

The Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) area supported patients with additional needs, including neurodiverse people and those living with a learning disability or dementia who had been admitted through the ED. This environment was intentionally calmer, with quieter spaces and low‑lighting areas designed to reduce stress and support a more comfortable hospital experience for these patients.

Staff had completed dementia awareness training and had nominated dementia champions. The relatives of patients with dementia were allowed to spend as much time as needed to support that patient in the unfamiliar environment. All wards had a range of sensory aides and fiddle toys for patients living with dementia. Sensory aids and fiddle toys help dementia patients by reducing anxiety, easing restlessness and providing calming, familiar tactile stimulation. Signage on the wards was dementia friendly. Dementia‑friendly hospital signage supports independence by using clear, high‑contrast designs with simple pictorial cues (e.g., yellow for toilets, 3D icons).

Staff shared several examples of creative ways they helped keep patients living with dementia occupied. One patient who had been a seamstress was given towels to fold, while another who enjoyed puzzles was brought crossword books. These personalised activities helped reduce distress and provided meaningful engagement. Fordwich Ward displayed dementia friendly clocks for patients. Dementia friendly clocks are designed to make telling time easier such as having large, easy-to-read faces, bold fonts, and large numbers.

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.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The trust had an online platform/online portal called East Kent Hospitals’ Patient Portal which provided patients with personalised and secure online access to their medical records. Examples of what people could do via the application included view details of current appointments and book follow ups, and allow - with permission - for parents, family members or carers to act on their behalf, view medications, test results, allergies and letters and safely send messages to care teams.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The hospital made mandatory reports to relevant authorities. Patient records were electronic and all computer terminals were locked and password protected during the assessment.

The service had access to interpreter services, including British Sign Language. The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff ensured information leaflets were available in languages spoken by patients. The Clinical Patient Leaflets Co‑ordinator worked with colleagues across the medical department and regularly co‑produced accessible patient information with stakeholders and people with lived experience and a charity that supports people with learning disabilities.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. Bereaved families were provided with a folder of information telling them the actions needed following a death in the hospital. They were given the direct number of the bereavement office and signposting to practical and emotional support following a death. Wards provided leaflets about the ward. For example, Fordwich Ward gave patients a ‘Welcome to Fordwich Ward’ leaflet which contained information on visiting hours, belongings and the number to call for progress updates on the patients.

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.

The service recorded 8,588 compliments in the previous 12 months. Compliments were consistently received every month, with a mixture of written cards, verbal thanks, and gifts such as chocolates, biscuits, cakes, sweets, fruit hampers, flowers, and even pizza. Many compliments were detailed narratives expressing deep gratitude for compassionate, skilled, and person‑centred care delivered across wards. Families frequently highlighted how staff supported them during very difficult periods, including end‑of‑life care. Several comments named individual clinicians and nurses who “went above and beyond,” with sentiments describing staff as angels, kind, professional, reassuring, and providing the best care in the hospital. Staff in endoscopy, Deal ward, respiratory teams, and older people’s services were repeatedly praised for their professionalism, communication, empathy, and the ability to make patients feel safe, respected, and cared for.

Partnership work was completed across several areas, including 77 responses to the QEQM inpatient survey. The Patient Voice and Involvement Team regularly engaged community groups to gather feedback and co-produce initiatives, particularly with those facing health inequalities. Additional engagement took place at community events and schools. Patient stories were presented to the Board three times, highlighting communication, staff behaviours, and stigma. Health inequalities updates were reported bi-monthly and shared with relevant governance groups.

The service received 59 complaints in the previous 12 months of which 23 remain opened and 36 were closed. Out of the closed complaints 4 were upheld, 15 partially upheld, 6 were withdrawn and 10 were not upheld. One complaint had been escalated to the Parliamentary Health Service Ombudsmen, and this was still ongoing. The complaints showed recurring issues with poor communication, delays in diagnosis and treatment, and concerns about clinical care, including missed diagnoses, medication errors, and unsafe discharges. Families also reported examples of insensitive communication and unhelpful staff attitudes, along with administrative problems such as referral errors and being unaware of appointment cancellations. In response, the service provided apologies where appropriate, delivered staff training, undertook reflective practice, strengthened documentation standards, and reviewed processes such as referral pathways and discharge procedures to improve safety and communication

Patients knew how to complain or raise concerns. There were multiple posters informing patients and their families how to raise concerns or complain. The hospital had a Patient Advise and Liaison Service (PALS) who were contactable by telephone or email. PALS offered confidential advice, support, and information to patients, families, and carers. When patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback. This was either at an in-person meeting or by letter. Staff received feedback on the outcome of investigation of complaints and acted on the findings.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. People were encouraged to discuss all concerns with staff as soon as possible. Staff prided themselves on having good relationships with patients and families so all efforts could be made to solve issues before they became a formal complaint.

The hospital also had implemented Martha’s Rule. Martha’s Rule gives patients and families the ability to request an urgent clinical review if they believe a patient’s condition is deteriorating and their concerns are not being addressed. It provides 24/7 access to a critical care outreach team that can rapidly assess and escalate care when necessary. If patients or their family were worried, they could call a dedicated number or fill in a web form which alerted staff to their concerns. Data showed that Martha’s Rule had been used 4 times in the 12 months before the assessment.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were assessed, investigated, diagnosed and treated promptly. The Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) service operated a dedicated referral telephone line that connected GPs and paramedics directly with consultants in the department. Through this line, consultants accepted direct referrals, which meant patients did not have to attend the ED before being treated. They also provided expert clinical advice on treatment options in the community, allowing some patients to remain safely at home without needing to come to the hospital. There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients. They supported people with protected characteristics by ensuring equitable access to care, offering interpreting services, accessible facilities and reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, learning disabilities or autism. Staff delivered culturally sensitive, person‑centred care, respected patients’ religious, cultural and gender‑identity needs and provided information in accessible formats with advocacy support when required. The hospital promoted an inclusive and safe environment with a zero‑tolerance approach to discrimination, involved patients and families in decisions about their care and monitored equality outcomes to address any disparities.

A virtual ward was open 8am to 8pm 7 days a week. The virtual ward delivered hospital‑level care to patients in their own homes and provided daily multidisciplinary reviews through home visits or video, carrying out tests and treatments such as blood tests, medication and intravenous fluids, and using electronic monitoring devices that enabled clinical teams to easily track each patient’s progress.

Staff did not always plan well for patients’ discharge, and we reviewed several safeguarding concerns that had been raised in the community about poor discharges. These included concerns that carers or the patient’s family were not notified of changes to medication, pressure damage that had occurred in hospital or changes to the amount of personal care the patient wanted. However, we discussed this with the staff during assessment, and they were confident that they had prepared patients well for discharge and then handed over to the discharge team to complete the process. The discharge team had been brought in to support the wards with discharging patients to free up nursing time for inpatients.

The rapid transfer team, an in‑reach team from a community trust, brought together occupational therapists and nurses. They received early referrals from wards, the ED and attended board rounds across the hospital. They followed a clear process of triage, assessment and presenting cases to a multidisciplinary hub. The team benefited from early referrals and effective relationships with wards; they considered patient and family views in discharge planning. However, they had access to limited community services and care packages and sometimes felt blamed for delayed discharges and found that failed discharge reviews often showed patients had simply become unwell. They also worried that ward nurses were losing discharge‑planning skills and asked wards to complete body maps for vulnerable patients before discharge.

In the last 3 months, there were on average 65 delayed discharges from inpatient wards per week. The most common reason for delay was waiting for a package of care to start.

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.

Staff support patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. A multidisciplinary palliative care team supported staff, patients and their families at the end of life. The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) form was completed with patients to document their wishes about treatment in an emergency. The ReSPECT process provides a personalised care plan for people with complex health needs, capturing their preferences for future emergency care. Developed through discussions with clinicians, it guides emergency teams on treatments that are appropriate, wanted, or not wanted.

Staff create personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings. We reviewed 10 patient care plans, which outlined clinical needs, treatments, risks, and personal preferences including cultural, spiritual, and communication needs. The plans showed how patients wanted to be involved in decisions, including any treatments they did or did not want, and identified who they wished to have involved in their care. They also captured what mattered most to patients, noted factors that affected their comfort, dignity or anxiety, and included relevant social circumstances to support safe, person‑centred care.

Care for people who were nearing the end of their life was managed and communicated in a sensitive and dignified way. We saw that staff recognised when patients were approaching the end of life and communicated this sensitively to them and those important to them. They updated care plans promptly and focused on comfort, by managing symptoms effectively and avoiding unnecessary interventions. Staff respected patients’ wishes, maintained dignity and privacy, and provided emotional, psychological and spiritual support where needed. They kept families informed, offered flexible visiting, and worked together compassionately as a team. After a patient died, staff supported those close to them and treated the patient with dignity and respect.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. Care for people with complex needs involved a multidisciplinary team, including doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, mental health staff, social workers, and specialist liaison teams. For example, physiotherapists and occupational therapists supported mobility and daily living plans, while dietitians and speech and language therapists advised on nutrition and swallowing. Social workers and mental health staff helped coordinate discharge planning and ongoing support, ensuring care was holistic and tailored to individual needs. Multidisciplinary meetings brought these roles together, supported by safeguarding, discharge teams and community or local authority services to ensure safe, coordinated ongoing care.