Royal Sussex County Hospital adult A and E urgent care review

Download (PDF 678KB)

Summary of report content

Healthwatch is the official consumer ‘watchdog’ for health and social care in Brighton and Hove. This report explores the experiences of 50 people using the Royal Sussex County Hospital (RSCH) Accident and Emergency Department (A&E) in January 2018 during known busy times, Sunday morning and Monday evening. In their survey sample, 27 people were using the Urgent Care Centre (UCC), 21 people were using the ‘Majors’ area and in the case of two people, the care area was unspecified. Healthwatch volunteers and staff conducting this review observed high quality care by dedicated NHS staff and received many comments from patients and families praising nurses, doctors and other hospital staff. The main findings included; Of the patients we interviewed, 27 patients were being treated in the UCC and 12 (44%) of these people were ‘streamed’ to be seen by a GP based in A&E. No one being treated in the Majors area was streamed to see a GP. The new ‘GP streaming’ service for UCC was introduced at the RSCH in November 2017, and seems to have been received well by patients. Only two from 3 the 12 patients treated by a PCFD GP said they would have preferred to see a hospital doctor. The majority of people attending A&E did not approach their GP before visiting A&E (33 people, 66% did not consult their GP). However, this means that 17 people (34%) had already consulted their GP. The report contains 13 recommendations with the main theme around access.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Royal Sussex County Hospital adult A and E urgent care review
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Brighton And Hove
Date of publication 
Monday, 1 January, 2018
Date evidence capture began 
Monday, 1 January, 2018
Date evidence capture finished 
Monday, 1 January, 2018
Type of report 
Key themes 
Building and facilities
Communication between staff and patients
Continuity of care
Information providing
Quality of appointment
Quality of care
Quality of regulation
Quality of staffing
Quality of treatment
Staff attitudes
Staff levels
Staff training
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
What type of organisation requested the work 
Primary research method used 
How was the information collected? 
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Secondary care services 
Accident & emergency

Details of people who shared their views

Number of people who shared their views 
Age group 
Not known
Not known
Not known
Sexual orientation 
Not known
Does the information include public's views? 
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Does the information include staff's views? 
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Not known
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
Not known

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.