The Care Quality Commission
  • Doctor
  • Urgent care service or mobile doctor

Queen Elizabeth Hospital Urgent Care Centre

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Stadium Road, London, SE18 4QH (020) 8836 6000

Provided and run by:
Greenbrook Healthcare (Hounslow) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

6, 7, 8 and 9 December 2022

During a routine inspection

This practice is rated as Good overall.

The key questions are rated as:

Are services safe? – Requires improvement

Are services effective? – Good

Are services caring? – Good

Are services responsive? – Good

Are services well-led? – Good

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection of Queen Elizabeth Hospital Urgent Care Centre on 6, 7, 8 and 9 December 2022. The service had previously been inspected in January 2017 where it had been rated as good overall, and in all five key questions.

The registered manager is the Head of Quality and Governance at the location. A registered manager is a person who is registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Our key findings were:

  • The service had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The service was not meeting targets for the time in which patients were clinically assessed as required by its commissioners, and standards set by NHS England. The targets were not being met at any of the four sites, and were particularly outlying at Princess Royal University Hospital Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC) and Kings College Hospital UTC.
  • The service routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence-based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the service easy to access and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it. However, the service was not ensuring a throughput of patients in line with its four-hour target.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation.

The areas where the provider must make improvements as they are in breach of regulations are:

  • Ensure that care and treatment is provided in a safe way to patients.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Improve throughput times such that it meets targets for discharging patients in four hours.
  • Review systems for monitoring prescription stationery.

Dr Sean O’Kelly BSc MB ChB MSc DCH FRCA

Chief Inspector of Hospitals and Interim Chief Inspector of Primary Medical Services

19 January 2017

During a routine inspection

Letter from the Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Urgent Care Centre on 19 January 2016. Overall the service is rated as good.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and an effective system in place for recording, reporting and learning from significant events.
  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed.
  • Patients’ care needs were assessed and delivered in a timely way according to need. The service met most of the National Quality Requirements and other targets specific to the urgent care centre.
  • Staff assessed patients’ needs and delivered care in line with current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained to provide them with the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • There was a system in place that enabled staff access to patient records, and the out of hours staff provided other services, for example the local GP and hospital, with information following contact with patients as was appropriate.
  • The service managed patients’ care and treatment in a timely way.
  • Patients said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available and easy to understand. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • The service worked proactively with other organisations and providers to develop services that supported alternatives to hospital admission where appropriate and improved the patient experience.
  • The service had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs. The vehicles used for home visits were clean and well equipped.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The service proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of and complied with the requirements of the duty of candour.

The areas where the provider should make improvement are:

  • The service should continue to work with the hospital at which the service is based to ensure that patients may be streamed in a more confidential way.

  • The service should ensure that the needs of those patients with hearing impairment are met.

  • The service should consider undertaking further surveys on patient experience.

Professor Steve Field CBE FRCP FFPH FRCGP 

Chief Inspector of General Practice