The Princess Royal Hospital

Updated 15 July 2026

The hospital was rated Requires Improvement overall. This rating reflects the findings from this inspection and has been combined with ratings from previous inspections to provide an overall assessment of all services. Further detail on other services can be found in previous inspection reports

Updated 18 February 2026

We inspected 25 quality statements across the safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We previously inspected diagnostic imaging jointly with outpatients, so we cannot compare our new ratings directly with previous ratings.

We conducted a comprehensive inspection of diagnostic imaging services at the Princess Royal Hospital and Hollinswood House on 30 April 2026. The team comprised of a CQC inspector and a specialist advisor. A team comprising of 2 CQC inspectors revisited the service on 7 May to conduct interviews with senior leaders in the service. The inspection took place due to intelligence of concern about the service. Furthermore, there had never been a standalone inspection of the diagnostic imaging services assessment service group. The service was last inspected in 2014 as part of the former outpatients and diagnostic imaging core service where it was rated good overall. There were combined breaches with outpatients and diagnostic imaging, stating that the trust must ensure to make improvements; we reviewed all these breaches during this inspection, and we found many areas requiring the improvements had been met.

During this inspection, the service was rated as requires improvement overall. There were not always enough staff to safely meet patients demand or support all activities within the department. As a result, staffing levels did not consistently meet the needs of the service. In addition, not all staff had completed the required mandatory training, which further impacted the department’s ability to provide safe and effective care. Delays in turnaround and waiting times also remained a challenge, with patients experiencing avoidable and unnecessary delays in accessing care.

There were breaches of regulation relating to non-compliance in mandatory training, staffing and turnaround times for some examinations.

However,

The service had a good learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. Managers investigated incidents thoroughly. Patients were protected and kept safe because staff understood local safeguarding arrangements. Staff managed medicines safely. Staff identified and reacted to unexpected deterioration in a patient’s condition. Staff understood and managed risks from the environment. The facilities and equipment met the needs of patient, were clean and well-maintained and any risks were mitigated.

Patients, and where appropriate those close to them, were involved in assessments of their needs. Staff reviewed assessments taking account of patient’s physical emotional, communication and personal care needs. Care and treatment were based on latest evidence and good practice guidance. Staff made sure patients understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

The service consistently delivered person-centred care, with patients treated with kindness, compassion, and respect at all times, and their privacy and dignity was upheld. Staff recognised patients as individuals, supported their preferences, and responded promptly to their needs. Patients were given clear, understandable information and had opportunities to ask questions, enabling them to make informed decisions about their care and diagnostic procedures. Patients were aware of how to raise concerns and confident these would be taken seriously. The service actively monitored and improved access, making reasonable adjustments to the environment to meet diverse needs and reduce barriers. Work was undertaken to address health inequalities through service planning, quality monitoring, training, and feedback. Patients were supported to be involved in decisions about their care, and staff wellbeing was promoted to sustain compassionate and effective care delivery.

Leaders and staff knew the service’s local vision, aims and objectives and understood how their service aligned with this. There was a culture based on speaking up, listening, learning and trust. Leaders were visible, knowledgeable and supportive, helping staff develop in their roles. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. Leaders had sound oversight of the quality of service being delivered through effective governance and risk management systems. Staff with protected characteristics felt supported.

There was a culture of continuous improvement with staff able to contribute ideas through a quality improvement programme.

Updated 15 May 2024

Updated 15 May 2024

Updated 29 November 2018

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• Mandatory training compliance levels for medical staff were significantly lower than the trust’s target.
• Medical staffing levels had not improved since our previous inspection and so were not in line with the required standards which meant that people did not always receive safe care and treatment or experience continuity of care in relation to medical personnel.
• Arrangements for the ward round did not always include multidisciplinary input.
• Recommended guidelines relating to allied health professional staffing levels were not met.
• The critical care outreach service did not operate 24 hours a day.
• The hospital at night team did not always ensure a safe service.
• Delivery of people’s care, treatment and support was not always in line with legislation, standards and evidence based guidance.
• The rehabilitation needs of patients were not always addressed which could lead to less favourable outcomes.
• The collection and monitoring of information about the outcomes of people’s care and treatment was limited.
• Participation in quality improvement initiatives was limited and there was little evidence relating to benchmarking, accreditation schemes, peer review, research or trials.
• There was limited evidence relating to participation in a comprehensive programme of clinical audit which specifically related to critical care.
• Less than 50% of nursing staff had achieved their post registration qualification in critical care nursing.
• Services were not always available to patients seven days a week.
• Staff compliance with Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty training was extremely low.
• The service did not always identify how it could be developed or improved when patient needs were not addressed.
• Timely access to initial assessment, test results, diagnosis and treatment was not always possible.
• Discharge from the critical care unit was not always in accordance with national standards and did not always take place at appropriate times or place.
• Patient diaries were not in use on the unit.
• Patients did not have access to formal counselling services for patients.
• Managers had the right skills and abilities to provide the service but there was lack of overarching managerial arrangements to ensure a coordinated critical care service across both the trust’s hospitals to provide a safe, high-quality and sustainable care.
• The challenges to quality and sustainability were known to leaders but the actions needed to address them were not being implemented promptly.
• There was a lack of clinical leadership and it was unclear as to whether there were priorities for ensuring sustainable and effective leadership within the critical care unit.
• Limited action was being taken to improve the service and there did not appear to be an immediate vision for the critical care unit.
• The long-term vision and strategy was known to staff but it was unclear as to whether they had collaborated with leadership in shaping them.
• Structures, processes and systems of accountability to support the delivery of the strategy and good quality, sustainable services were unclear.
• Governance and management systems were not functioning effectively or interacting with each other appropriately.
• It was unclear whether there were comprehensive assurance systems or whether performance issues were escalated appropriately through clear structures and processes.
• There were not always clear and robust service performance measures which were always reported and monitored.
• The service’s approach to service delivery and improvement was inconsistent.

However;

• Regular updates and training in the systems and processes were provided to staff which helped to keep people safe and Mandatory training compliance was in line with trust targets.
• People were protected from abuse, neglect, harassment and breaches of their dignity and respect due to the services safety and safeguarding systems.
• The service maintained high standards of cleanliness and hygiene.
• The premises and facilities of the critical care unit were generally designed, maintained and used to keep people safe.
• Maintenance and use of equipped appeared safe.
• Risk assessments carried out on people who used services were comprehensive.
• The planning and review of nursing staffing and skill mix usually ensured people received safe care and treatment.
• People’s individual care records, including clinical data, were written and managed in a way that kept people safe.
• Medicine management arrangements kept people safe as they were recorded, administered and stored appropriately.
• There was a low number of serious incidents.
• Prevalence of patient harm was recorded using the Safety Thermometer and it was also used to provide immediate information and analysis for frontline teams to monitor their performance in delivering harm free care.
• Physical, mental health and social needs of patients were holistically assessed.
• Good patient outcomes in relation to mortality and unplanned readmissions to the unit were being achieved.
• The National Organ Donation programme was in operation within the trust.
• Nutrition and hydration needs were identified, monitored and met.
• Pain was effectively assessed and managed.
• The critical care unit was involved in the local critical care network.
• The assessment, planning and delivery of care involved necessary staff, including those in different teams, services and organisations.
• The relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005, was understood by staff.
• The personal, cultural, social and religious needs of patients were understood and respected by staff and were considered when delivering care.
• Staff took time to interact with patients and those close to them, in a respectful and considerate manner.
• Patients’ privacy and dignity was always respected, including during physical and intimate care.
• Patient confidentiality was respected by ensuring conversations took place in private or when at the bedside.
• Care, treatment and condition was understood by patients.
• The impact a patient’s care, treatment and condition had on their wellbeing and on those close to them was understood by staff.
• Carers were treated as important partners in the delivery of patient care.
• A sensitive approach to relatives was taken when a patient might be a possible eligible organ donor.
• Patients’ health needs could be addressed on the unit as appropriate equipment was available.
• Services were delivered, made accessible and coordinated to take account of the needs of different people.
• Some action was being taken to minimise the length of time people had to wait for care, treatment and advice.
• Complaints were handled effectively and confidentially, with regular updates provided and a formal record being kept.
• Local leaders were visible and approachable.
• The trust had a clear set of values, with quality and sustainability as the top priorities.
• Staff felt supported, respected, valued and proud to work in the organisation.
• Arrangements for identifying and recording risks were in place and there was an alignment between recorded risks and what staff say is on their worry list.
• The service gathered people’s views and experiences to shape and improve the service and culture.

Updated 15 May 2024

Updated 15 May 2024

Updated 8 April 2020

This is the first time we have rated outpatients separately from diagnostic imaging. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough nursing staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff assessed most risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service. Staff had the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep patients safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment. Managers regularly reviewed and adjusted staffing levels and skill mix and gave locum staff a full induction.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. Most people could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued by their immediate managers. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However,

• The service did not always have enough medical staff provided clinic appointments for some specialities quickly enough.
• The phlebotomy room used chairs which were in a poor state of repair and not compliant with infection prevention and control guidelines. Remedial action for this was in progress. The service controlled infection risk well in all other areas.
• Not all patient consultation records were clear and fully legible.
• Nursing staff did not always complete mental capacity act (MCA) assessments. Nurses relied on medical staff conducting MCA assessments. Staff were not up to date with (MCA) training. The trust had a plan to remedy this.
• Waiting times from referral to treatment and arrangements to admit, treat and discharge patients were not consistently in line with national standards for some cancer specialities.

Updated 8 April 2020

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as requires improvement because:

• The service had not ensured all staff had completed mandatory training in key skills and safeguarding training.
• There were inconsistent infection control practices across the service. A patient in isolation had their side room door left open on two consecutive days.
• There was frequent wrong site of surgery marked on patients and within the operating list and consent forms. (These were highlighted during the World Health Organisation (WHO) surgical checks.)
• Medical outliers in the day surgery unit blocked beds causing cancellation of operations.
• From August 2018 to July 2019 the trust’s referral to treatment time for admitted pathways for surgery was lower than the England average in 10 out of 12 months. From March 2019, fewer than 50% of patients were admitted within 18 weeks of referral each month.
• We were not assured the service had robust systems in place to include all relevant risks on the risk register and proactively manage and mitigate risks.

However,

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 15 May 2024