East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust

Updated 16 October 2026

East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust was formed 1 July 2018 following the merger of Colchester Hospital University Foundation Trust and Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust. They provide hospital and community health services to almost one million people and are the largest NHS organisation in East Anglia, employing more than 12,000 staff.

The trust delivers care from two main acute hospital sites, ‘Colchester General Hospital and Ipswich Hospital’, six community hospitals and in patients’ own homes. The trust services include accident and emergency; critical care; planned medical and surgical care, consultant and midwifery-led maternity, neonatal and paediatric care; diagnostic and therapy services.

The trust also provides community health services in Suffolk and north Essex, operating in Aldeburgh, Clacton, Halstead, Harwich and Felixstowe community hospitals, as well as Bluebird Lodge near Ipswich.

The trust saw over 127,000 inpatient and 102,114 day case admissions over the previous year (2024/25). There were also 1,043,828 outpatient attendances in the same period. There were almost 175,000 accident and emergency attendances in the two acute locations, with an additional 162,835 seen in urgent treatment centre. In the same period 6,488 babies were delivered.

We carried out an announced assessment of East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust on 24– 27 November 2025. We undertook further visits to observe the trust’s board and committee meetings.

We assessed the trust using our single assessment framework. We assessed all 8 of the quality statements in the well-led key question using our current framework. We reviewed evidence for quality statements in line with published evidence categories.

The well-led review followed assessments of the trust’s assessment service groups (ASGs). The locations and ASGs we assessed included urgent and emergency care, and medical care (including older people’s care) services at Colchester General Hospital and The Ipswich Hospital. We undertook these assessments to ensure we had a thorough understanding of services provided by the trust ahead of our well-led review. The initial assessment of the trust’s front-line services was triggered in response to information of concern we received associated with risk within the services.

At both locations, our assessment of medical care (including older people) services and urgent and emergency care, found concerns which resulted in a breach of regulation, for which we served warning notices. We identified breaches of regulations in relation to Safe Care and Treatment and Good Governance for both locations and breach of regulation in relation to premises and equipment at the Colchester site.

Overall, the trust was rated as requires improvement for the well led key question.

People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. The trust did not always demonstrate that diversity is valued in their workforce. They were working towards an inclusive and fair culture and improving equality and equity for people who work for them. The trust did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate. The trust did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

However, leaders understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. Leaders were also aware of the trust’s impact on environmental sustainability. They were able to provide examples of where the trust had made changes to reduce the trust’s carbon footprint.

We found breaches in good governance. You can find more details of our concerns in the quality statement findings.

We assessed all 8 quality statements within the well led key question. Each quality statement assessed is awarded a score. Details on how we score can be found on our website: https://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/how-we-do-our-job/ratings

You can find further information about how we carried out our assessments at: https://www.cqc.org.uk/about-us/how-we-do-our-job/what-we-do-inspection

Updated 8 January 2020

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

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. The service controlled infection risk 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 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.
• 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 most patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well 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 and the community to plan and manage services.

However:

• Managers did not always make sure all staff completed required mandatory training. Not all staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse.
• The ward environment in all three community hospitals did not support patients living with dementia and other complex needs