University Hospital North Durham

Updated 12 June 2026

County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust provides healthcare services to a population of 650,000 people across County Durham and Darlington, and surrounding areas. It sits within the North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care System (ICS).

It is registered to provide the following regulated activities: Treatment of Disease, Disorder or Injury, Surgical Procedures, Diagnostic and Screening Procedures.

University Hospital North Durham (UHND) has approximately 528 beds and provides a range of NHS hospital services.

This assessment looked at surgery services due to aged rating and emerging risk. We conducted this unannounced assessment on 7 to 9 October 2025. We assessed 33 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions.

We visited clinical areas and spoke with patients, their families and carers. We looked at health care records and a range of policies, procedures and other documents relating to the running of the service.

We spoke with 110 staff, including senior leaders, managers, clinical staff and non-clinical workers across the surgery care group.

We rated the surgery service as requires improvement.

At this assessment, we looked at the surgery service. The ratings from the surgery service have been combined with ratings of the other services at UHND. The overall location rating for the hospital is Good.

Updated 4 June 2025

The surgery service operates at 3 main sites, with elective and emergency surgery being undertaken at Darlington Memorial Hospital (DMH) and University Hospital of North Durham (UHND), and elective (general surgery, orthopaedics, chronic pain, ophthalmology, dental, endoscopy, ear nose and throat, head and neck, and dermatology) undertaken at Bishop Auckland Hospital (BAH).

This assessment looked at surgery services due to aged rating and was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person using the service died. This incident is subject to further investigation by CQC as to whether any regulatory action should be taken. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the safety of surgery. This inspection examined those risks.

We conducted this unannounced assessment on 7 to 9 October 2025. We assessed 33 quality statements across the safe, effective, responsive and well-led key questions.

We visited clinical areas and spoke with patients, their families and carers. We looked at health care records and a range of policies, procedures and other documents relating to the running of the service.

We spoke with 110 staff, including senior leaders, managers, clinical staff and non-clinical workers across the care group.

We rated the surgery service as requires improvement.

The rating of surgery has been combined with the ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all the other services at UHND.

In our assessment of surgery services at University Hospital North Durham, Darlington Memorial Hospital and Bishop Auckland Hospital, we identified significant and serious patient safety concerns. These related to safe staffing, escalation where patients were deteriorating, record keeping and learning from incidents.

We took enforcement action and served a Warning Notice under Section 29A of the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which requires the trust to make significant improvement to the quality of healthcare provided.

Requires Improvement

We rated the service as requires Improvement. We found breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safe staffing and governance.

• The service did not have a positive safety culture, and lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.
• Staff did not always assess, manage and monitor risks to people's health and safety or mitigate them where identified.
• Staff did not always keep comprehensive patient records.
• The service did not make sure there were enough suitably qualified, skilled, competent and experienced clinical staff to meet the needs of patients and keep them safe from harm.
• Staff did not always follow current evidence-based good practice and standards.
• The service did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.
• The service did not always tell people about their rights around consent.
• The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.
• Governance systems and audits were not effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement.
• Staff did not always feel their concerns were listened to.

However:

• The service worked well across teams and services to support people and help them to lead healthier lives.
• Staff treated people as individuals, with kindness, empathy and compassion.
• The service promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

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.

If we have requested an action plan, this will be requested upon publication of the final report.

Updated 3 June 2024

Date of assessment: 17 Jun to 12 Aug 2024.

University Hospital North Durham provides a range of NHS hospital services. This assessment looked at urgent and emergency care (UEC) services. We carried out this assessment due to concerns regarding specific patient safety incidents, triage and poor performance indicators, such as waiting times.

The rating from UEC has been combined with ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all other services at University Hospital North Durham. The rating of University Hospital North Durham remains good.

In our assessment of UEC services, we found there was a good safety culture where events were investigated, and learning was embedded to promote good practice. Staff provided safe care and treatment, and the environment was safe and well maintained.

When the department was busy, leaders adjusted staffing levels to meet the needs of their patients. Staff delivered good care and treatment following evidence-based practice and people had good outcomes. Staff were kind, caring and compassionate.

The service was responsive to the needs of the local community and people could access care and treatment when they needed it. The department and staff were well-led by strong leaders who embodied the cultures and values of their workforce. There was improved governance and a proactive approach to risk management.

The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. The service now had processes to ensure clinicians were available with paediatric competencies to assess children who are streamed away from the emergency care setting and the department had worked to improve medical staffing and paediatric-competent nurse staffing.

Updated 1 March 2018

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The hospital had enough staff with the right skill mix for the care and treatment of patients requiring non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Escalation plans, separate treatment areas and the assessment of staff competence had been developed.
• There was a standardised and documented clinical pathway for the care and treatment of patients requiring NIV across the trust.
• The wards and directorate areas were clean and equipment well maintained. Staff followed infection control policies that managers monitored to improve practice.
• Staff understood and followed procedures to protect vulnerable adults or children.
• Staff provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence and used this to develop new policies and procedures.
• Staff worked together as a team for the benefit of patients. Doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals supported each other to provide care.
• Staff cared for patients with compassion, treating them with dignity and respect and involved patients and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.
• The directorate treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, which were shared with all staff.
• The directorate had a clear vision and strategy that all staff understood and put into practice.
• The directorate had governance, risk management and quality measures to improve patient care, safety and outcomes.
• Staff described the culture within the service as open and transparent. Staff could raise concerns and felt listened to. They said leaders were visible and approachable.

However:

• Members of staff did not comply with hospital policy on the administration of covert medicines.
• We found evidence of staff providing medication covertly for patients without ensuring capacity assessments were in place. We pointed this out at the time and this was addressed immediately by the trust.
• Staff did not understand their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They did not always follow legislation to support patients experiencing mental ill health and those who lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care.
• The trust did not meet targets for Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training. The knowledge and practice of staff on the wards raised concern over the effectiveness of training and numbers trained.
• The trust policy for Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty was brief and did not direct staff to guidance or tools for use by staff. Guidance available was incorrect and not in line with the Mental Capacity Act or the code of practice.
• At the time of inspection we had concerns about Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards training, the knowledge and practice of staff on the wards related to capacity assessments and DoLS applications and the trust policy for Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty.
• Medical and nursing records were not stored securely in all areas we visited.
• Staff satisfaction was mixed according the staff survey. Staff did not always feel actively engaged or empowered.

Updated 29 September 2015

Overall, services for children and young people were good at this hospital. Staff demonstrated awareness of how to report incidents using the trust’s reporting mechanisms and we saw these were reviewed and acted upon by the management team. We found risks were assessed and monitored, and control measures were put in place. We found all children’s clinical areas were kept clean and were regularly monitored for standards of cleanliness. Medicines were stored and administered correctly. Medical records were handled safely and protected.

Members of staff of all grades confirmed they received a range of mandatory training, although training records did not always accurately reflect training uptake. Medical staffing had some gaps but these were being managed and addressed.

The levels of nursing staff were adequate to meet the needs of children and young people.

Children’s services had made improvements to care and treatment where needs had been identified using programmes of assessment or in response to national guidelines.

Children, young people and parents told us they received compassionate care with good emotional support. Parents felt fully informed and involved in decisions relating to their child’s treatment and care.

The service was responsive to children’s and young people’s needs and was well led. The service had a clear vision and strategy. The service was led by a positive management team who worked together. The service had introduced innovative improvements with the aim of improving the delivery of care for children and families.

Updated 29 September 2015

Overall the services within critical care were good. However, some aspects of safety required improvement. The intensive care unit did not have an outreach team to identify and monitor deteriorating patients. The purpose of the service would be to assess the critically ill or deteriorating patient on wards and to stabilise them at ward level and so avoid the need to escalate to the unit. There was no clinical pharmacist input to the daily multidisciplinary ward rounds. This was not in line with the national Core Standards for Intensive Care Units 2013. The unit had just started to have its own mortality and morbidity meetings, which were still to be further embedded. Medical and nursing staffing levels were adequate, but there was no supernumerary sister or charge nurse to cover areas such as peak activity times, facilitating admissions and discharges or coordinating nurse staffing on the unit.

Patients received treatment and care according to national guidelines and the unit used an audit programme to check whether their practice was up to date and based on sound evidence. The unit was obtaining good-quality outcomes as shown by its Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) data. We found there was good multidisciplinary team working across the unit. However, the full multidisciplinary team did not attend the ward rounds.

Staff cared for patients in a compassionate manner with dignity and respect. Relatives we spoke with told us their loved ones had all their care needs met by dedicated staff. Relatives told us they were involved with their loved ones’ care and felt supported in making decisions as a family.

Bed occupancy rate within the unit was 92% which enabled it to plan admissions and accept emergencies. The unit experienced some delay in discharges, often due to the lack of available beds and due to delays in determining what the parent team was when patients were admitted via the A&E department; this also caused delays in discharges to a ward.

Staff felt well supported within an open, positive culture.  The governance processes still needed time to become embedded, with medical and nursing leadership within the unit needing further development.

Updated 3 December 2019

•The service controlled infection risk well. Staff kept themselves, equipment and the premises clean. They used control measures to prevent the spread of infection.

•The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

•The service provided care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.

•The service made sure staff were competent for their roles. Managers appraised staff’s work performance and held supervision meetings with them to provide support and monitor the effectiveness of the service.

•The service had effective systems for identifying risks, planning to eliminate or reduce them, and coping with both the expected and unexpected.

•Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness.

•The service had systems and processes in place to ensure that the needs of local people were considered when planning the service delivery.

•Managers at all levels in the trust had the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.

•The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and workable plans to turn it into action developed with involvement from staff, patients, and key groups representing the local community.

However:

•Syringe driver safety checks were not completed in accordance with trust policy (‘Policy for the administration of subcutaneous medication’). We were not assured training in the specific syringe devices used throughout the trust was followed up or monitored at ward level.

•The service did not consistently use systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, record and store medicines. Pain care plans were not completed in all patient records.

•The results of the first round of the ‘National Audit of Care at the End of Life’ (2019) showed the trust scored lower when compared nationally for documented assessments of nutrition between recognition and time of death and hydration.

•Pain assessments were inconsistently documented for palliative and end of life care patients across wards visited. We saw documentation specific to pain assessments were used on some wards and on others we saw no evidence of pain assessment.

Updated 18 April 2024

Updated 29 September 2015

Overall the care and treatment received by patients in the University Hospital of North Durham outpatient and imaging departments was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. Patients were very happy with the care they received and found it to be caring and compassionate. Staff were supported and worked within nationally agreed guidance to ensure that patients received the most appropriate care and treatment for their conditions. Patients were protected from the risk of harm because there were policies in place to make sure that any additional support needs were met. Staff were aware of these policies and how to follow them.

The departments took part in the NHS Friends and Family Test and another satisfaction scheme called ‘I want great care’. There were comment boxes in waiting areas.

On the whole, the services offered were delivered in an innovative way to respond to patient needs and ensure that the departments worked effectively and efficiently.