- NHS hospital
Queen's Medical Centre
Assessment report published 6 November 2026
Contents
Ratings - Urgent and emergency services
Our view of the service
The Adult and Paediatric Emergency Department's (ED) at Queen’s Medical Centre provide a 24-hour, seven-day a week service to the local population and surrounding areas and operates as a major trauma centre. The Adult ED consisted of a resuscitation area, ‘majors’ area, primary and secondary assessment area and waiting room with a smaller sub waiting area. The Paediatric Emergency Department had its own resuscitation area with 2 dedicated bays for children and provides emergency care for children and young persons in the local population. There was a Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) unit to support short stay adult patients who were in the hospital. There was a co-located Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) that provides primary care for both children and adults, which is operated by a different provider.
On Tuesday 21, Wednesday 22 and Thursday 30 April 2026 the CQC carried out an inspection at Queen’s Medical Centre. We last inspected Urgent Emergency Care (UEC) services at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust in 2021, when we rated it as requires improvement.
We assessed 25 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores from the last assessment to give the rating.
We spoke with patients and relatives/carers. We reviewed patient records. We spoke with staff which included: consultants, resident doctors, nurses, senior leaders within the service, divisional leaders, healthcare assistants, administration staff, pharmacists and security staff.
The rating of Urgent Emergency Care Services at Queen’s Medical Centre:
Safe- The service did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. The service did not always provide care to meet people’s needs that was safe. The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. The service did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. However, the service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that.
Effective- Staff provided care and treatment following evidence-based practice and staff were trained and competent and had the right skills to meet patient’s needs. Staff worked well with each other in the department and across teams to support people. Staff made sure people understood their rights around consent. However, the service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.
Caring- The service did not always respect patients’ privacy and dignity, this was difficult due to the care environment. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff.
Responsive - The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information. The service did not always respond in a timely manner or involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
Well Led- The service did not always have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture. Staff did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard and concerns addressed. The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. However, the service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work for people. Leaders understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support.
People's experience of this service
Most patients, families and carers we spoke with were mostly positive about the staff, who treated them with kindness and provided effective care and treatment. Comments from patients included saying that staff “Couldn’t do enough for you”. We observed staff interacting with patients in a sensitive and kind manner. However, patients in corridors said that it was difficult to access staff. Some patients said communication with them was generally good, however some patients said it was not and they were not aware of the plan for their treatment.
Patients said they were assessed quickly by trained nursing or medical staff when they arrived, unless they were treated on corridors then this was not always the case. They were asked appropriate questions to find out more about why they had attended the emergency department.