Lincoln County Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We rated safe as requires improvement. We assessed 4 quality statements. We found one breach of the regulations in relation to infection prevention and control. Most areas within the department were observed to be clean during the inspection process, however there were a few instances where this was not the case during the inspection. The service worked with partners to try to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. Staff told us that the flow in to and out of the service was the main challenge they faced. There were long waits for bed across the department in both the majors and seated majors areas. The service worked with people to understand what being safe means. We observed hospital staff work well with ambulance staff and follow good safeguarding processes. The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. The service made sure that the equipment and technology support the delivery of safe care. Some of the facilities did not always meet the standards for safe care, however the trust provided with assurance about how the risks were managed in these areas.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service worked with partners to try to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. They tried to ensure continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff told us that the flow in to and out of the service was the main challenge they faced. Patients were staying in the department longer than necessary due to lack of bed capacity within the wider hospital. Staff told us that there was not always good support from other services and areas within the hospital which could allow better flow through the healthcare system.

Staff told us that they had medical input from other areas of the hospital as patients were starting medical care within the emergency department.

The service worked with people and their partners to improve and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed, monitored and assured. The service worked to ensure continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. There were long waits for bed across the department in the majors and seated majors areas, however, the percentage of patients either admitted, transferred or discharged from ED within four hours increased to 72.83% during the month of inspection, this has continued to increase to 78.19% in March 2025. Patients often had to wait on the back of ambulances while waiting for treatment. However improvements in performance have been seen, including reductions in waiting times. The percentage of patients receiving treatment within 60 minutes of arrival on ambulance has remained consistent across the past 12 months. The service had made improvements on the average time for triage and for beds for walk in patients in the last 12 months. The percentage of patients seen within 15 minutes who arrived by ambulance had improved in the last 12 months, it had increased from 60.7% to 87.9%.

The service worked with people to understand what being safe means. The service worked to protect their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service made sure they shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

We observed hospital staff work well with ambulance staff and follow good safeguarding processes to protect patients who were arriving and receiving treatment within the emergency department.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. The service made sure that the equipment and technology support the delivery of safe care. Staff told us some of the facilities did not always meet the standards for safe care.Staff told us they felt the seated majors area was not fit for the acuity of the department and many more patients were being cared for in there than could be safely managed.Staff told us they felt they could not always facilitate a safe handover of care between shifts due to the number of patients. The plaster room was cramped and small for the number of patients being treated in there.Leaders told us that this area was being used temporarily due to ongoing building works.

We observed some of the facilities did not always meet the standards for safe care. Whilst on inspection, staff often struggled to find patients who were not in the seated majors area. The plaster room was cramped and small for the number of patients and was staffed by 1 nurse with a lack of support.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. The service made sure that the equipment and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

When we raised issues regarding the plaster room which was used for patient care they stated that whilst this was not an ideal environment it was only there for temporary use during refurbishments. Following on from this inspection we were provided with evidence that the plaster room was appropriately staffed. An emergency alarm for staff and a patient call bell, to enable patients to signal for assistance, were available within the room. The service also provided us with assurance around staffing ratios within the seated majors area and the plaster room.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They mostly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading.

We observed most areas within the department were clean during the inspection process. During the inspection we observed some areas that did not meet these standards, these included a mental health room which was being used as a clinic room and the ‘plaster room’ area. The mental health room being used as a clinic room was unclean, there was waste left in the room and a wet patch on the floor. The ‘plaster room’ was also cluttered, unclean and had a wet patch on the floor.

The service audited cleanliness and had actions in place, however results were mixed with some area scoring consistently ‘red’ with no change. These included the general environment, storage area and clean utility treatment room sections. Infection prevention and control for the department scored ‘red’ in September on the quality dashboard. The Trust has an ongoing action plan to improve infection prevention and control within the department which is monitored through the governance process.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.