- NHS hospital
Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital
Assessment report published 28 August 2026
Contents
Ratings - Urgent and emergency services
Our view of the service
We conducted an unannounced, assessment of Urgent and Emergency services at Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother Hospital on 6 and 7 January 2026 as part of our winter pressures programme, which supports providers to manage risks associated with increased seasonal demand.
At the time of the assessment, 4 wards were affected by norovirus, with impacted patients isolated. We assessed 25 quality statements across the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led. These findings were combined with scores from the previous assessments to determine the overall rating.
Urgent and emergency care services were last assessed in 2023, when the service was not rated. The most recent rated assessment took place in March 2018, when the service was rated as requires improvement. This rating has remained unchanged following the current assessment.
In March 2023, we identified 3 breaches of regulation relating to safe care and treatment, dignity and respect and staffing. During this assessment, they remained in breach of these regulations.
We engaged with staff across a range of roles, including senior nurses, healthcare assistants, consultants, resident doctors, ambulance crews, domestic staff, matrons and the care group leadership team. We attended departmental safety huddles and site management meetings, observed care delivery, and reviewed over 50 patient records. This included 21 observed care interactions, discussions with 14 staff members, and 6 in-depth reviews of patient pathways, focusing on timeliness and appropriateness of care.
The department was operating under significant pressure due to high demand and reduced bed capacity. Delays in patient discharge adversely affected patient flow, leading to prolonged waiting times. Patients waiting in corridors did not consistently have their privacy and dignity maintained, and extended stays in non-clinical environments increased the risk of potential avoidable harm.
This was particularly concerning for patients with mental health needs, some of whom experienced delays of several days in accessing suitable specialist inpatient beds. This highlighted ongoing challenges in ensuring timely access to appropriate care.
The service did not consistently meet patients’ basic needs, including nutrition, hydration, pain management, personal hygiene, and physical health monitoring. Governance arrangements for patients with mental health needs were not sufficiently effective or embedded.
Leadership, oversight, and escalation processes were inconsistent, with gaps in visibility, accountability, and multidisciplinary coordination during periods of sustained pressure. These issues disproportionately affected frail, complex, and high-risk patients, including those with mental health needs.
Despite these challenges, staff demonstrated professionalism and commitment. Initial physical and mental health assessments were completed, and liaison psychiatry services generally responded promptly, providing specialist input and daily reviews.
Following the inspection, a Section 29a Warning Notice was issued due to significant concerns regarding patient safety and the need for significant improvement. The trust submitted representations to the Warning Notice; however, these were not upheld. However, 2 points relating to monitoring of nutrition and hydration, and inconsistent physical health monitoring in the mental health lounge, did not meet the legal threshold.
People's experience of this service
During the assessment, we were able to observe patient care and speak directly with patients using the service. This allowed us to directly capture the experiences of patients who received care and treatment.
Patients raised concerns regarding lack of bed availability, which resulted in some patients receiving care in corridor areas. They described concerns relating to patient safety, dignity, privacy, pressure area care, and access to adequate nutrition.
Following our assessment, we received information of concern from 6 patients between 6 and 26 January 2026. These concerns included staff, patients and families describing issues such as insufficient staffing to provide basic care, infection prevention and control concerns, inadequate nutrition, unsafe discharge arrangements, and wider patient safety risks. This feedback was similar to, and supported, what we heard on site and what we observed during the assessment.
However, most patients, families and carers we spoke with were positive about the staff, who mostly treated them with warmth and kindness.
The service collected feedback from patients through the NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT), and their own survey. We looked at patient feedback from the NHS Family Test survey and saw that of the 658 responses 495 were 4 and 5 stars. Many of the 3 to 1 star reviews still praised care given by staff but gave a low review for wait times.