- NHS hospital
Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
Assessment report published 21 August 2026
Contents
Ratings - Urgent and emergency services
Our view of the service
We inspected the service from 3 to 4 March 2026.
The inspection was carried out as part of the winter pressures programme of inspections.
We rated the service as requires improvement. The service had made some improvements since our last inspection, but not all the previous breaches were met. There was not consistent clinical oversight of the main adult emergency department waiting room, patients were not always triaged within 15 minutes of arrival, and not all patients were issued with ID wristbands.
We inspected 25 quality statements across the key questions Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led and have combined the score for each of these areas to give an updated rating. We rated safe, caring, responsive, and well-led requires improvement and effective good.
We found 2 breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and staffing. Staff did not always assess risks to patient's health and safety or mitigate them when identified. There were not enough staff to ensure patients’ safety and meet their needs.
We will request an action plan to show how the service will meet the breaches of regulations. This will be requested upon publication of the final report.
Urgent and emergency care at Royal Shrewsbury Hospital was delivered through the adult emergency department (ED), a paediatric emergency department (PED), an urgent treatment centre (UTC) and a minor injuries unit (MIU). The ED consisted of an ambulatory care unit that included the main waiting room and a fit to sit area. A majors area, a resuscitation area, and an area called the ambulance receiving area (ARA). The PED was a self-contained triage, assessment, and majors area.
Our inspection took place during a period of significant change to the layout of the ED. Fit to sit, ARA, and a part of majors were relocated while we were onsite. This meant some parts of the service being delivered looked different on the first day of our inspection compared to the second day.
A team of 2 CQC inspectors, 2 CQC pharmacist specialists, 2 specialist advisors and an expert by experience visited the service. We spoke to 50 staff including doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, managers, pharmacists, administrative staff, and housekeeping staff. We also spoke to 30 patients and 15 relatives. We looked at patients notes and attended 4 meetings.
People's experience of this service
While most of the patients and relatives we spoke with expressed they were happy with their care, our inspection found elements of care that did not meet the expected standards.
People did not receive consistent support from staff to manage risks associated with their health and wellbeing. This was because there was not always enough staff to meet the needs of patients, and there was a lack of written guidance for staff. This meant staff were not always knowledgeable about risks and processes to reduce harm. There was not always enough equipment to keep patients safe. Staff could not manage the privacy and dignity of all patients.
However, patients were mostly positive about staff and said things like, “The staff are lovely and very kind. Can't fault any of them.”