Independent information. England-wide.Public data. Clear sources.

NHS trusts · King's Lynn and West Norfolk

The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King'S Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust

Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gayton Road, King'S Lynn, PE30 4ET

CQC: Requires improvementActive source recordOrganisation information

What can I learn about The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King'S Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust?

The recorded overall CQC rating is “Requires improvement”, dated 23 February 2022. These figures describe an organisation or network; check which service and location would handle your care.

UNDERSTAND YOUR OPTIONS

Care and access: the published picture

Start with the topics that matter to you. Each card explains one published measure; the date and reporting group show what it covers.

Inpatient experience across this trust

Patients’ survey responses across the trust. These can include several hospital sites.

2025 survey NHS trust

Patients’ overall hospital experience

7.8 out of 10

7.8 out of 10 was reported for “Patients’ overall hospital experience”. Adult inpatients’ reported experience, scored out of 10 and adjusted by the publisher for age, sex and admission route. Higher scores mean more positive experiences; small differences do not establish a better hospital.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall experience

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.88.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Being treated with respect and dignity

8.9 out of 10

8.9 out of 10 was reported for “Being treated with respect and dignity”. Adult inpatients’ reported experience of respect and dignity, scored out of 10. This describes the survey group and reporting unit shown, rather than every patient’s care.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respect and dignity

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.89.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

If you brought medication with you to hospital, were you able to take it when you needed to?

8.2 out of 10

8.2 out of 10 was reported for “If you brought medication with you to hospital, were you able to take it when you needed to?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: If you brought medication with you to hospital, were you able to take it when you needed to?

Reported sample: 264.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.78.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.2 out of 10
20217.6 out of 10
20227.3 out of 10
20237.7 out of 10
20247.7 out of 10
20258.2 out of 10
Explore 60 additional measures

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals?

7.7 out of 10

7.7 out of 10 was reported for “Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you get enough help from staff to eat your meals?

Reported sample: 177.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.38.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 07.9. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20247.9 out of 10
20257.7 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you able to get hospital food outside of set mealtimes? This could include additional food if you missed set mealtimes due to operations/procedures or another reason.

6.3 out of 10

6.3 out of 10 was reported for “Were you able to get hospital food outside of set mealtimes? This could include additional food if you missed set mealtimes due to operations/procedures or another reason.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you able to get hospital food outside of set mealtimes? This could include additional food if you missed set mealtimes due to operations/procedures or another reason.

Reported sample: 197.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.47.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 06.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20246.5 out of 10
20256.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

During your time in hospital, did you get enough to drink?

9 out of 10

9 out of 10 was reported for “During your time in hospital, did you get enough to drink?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: During your time in hospital, did you get enough to drink?

Reported sample: 425.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 99.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209.5 out of 10
20219 out of 10
20229.1 out of 10
20239.2 out of 10
20249.1 out of 10
20259 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When you asked doctors questions, did you get answers you could understand?

8.3 out of 10

8.3 out of 10 was reported for “When you asked doctors questions, did you get answers you could understand?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When you asked doctors questions, did you get answers you could understand?

Reported sample: 433.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.39.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.5 out of 10
20218.4 out of 10
20228.2 out of 10
20238.2 out of 10
20248.3 out of 10
20258.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you have confidence and trust in the doctors treating you?

8.6 out of 10

8.6 out of 10 was reported for “Did you have confidence and trust in the doctors treating you?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you have confidence and trust in the doctors treating you?

Reported sample: 461.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.79.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209 out of 10
20218.7 out of 10
20228.7 out of 10
20238.6 out of 10
20248.6 out of 10
20258.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When doctors spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

8.5 out of 10

8.5 out of 10 was reported for “When doctors spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When doctors spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

Reported sample: 457.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.49.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.5 out of 10
20218.3 out of 10
20228.3 out of 10
20238.5 out of 10
20248.5 out of 10
20258.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When you asked nurses questions, did you get answers you could understand?

8.4 out of 10

8.4 out of 10 was reported for “When you asked nurses questions, did you get answers you could understand?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When you asked nurses questions, did you get answers you could understand?

Reported sample: 431.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.29.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.9. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.9 out of 10
20218.6 out of 10
20228.4 out of 10
20238.4 out of 10
20248.3 out of 10
20258.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you have confidence and trust in the nurses treating you?

8.6 out of 10

8.6 out of 10 was reported for “Did you have confidence and trust in the nurses treating you?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you have confidence and trust in the nurses treating you?

Reported sample: 466.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.69.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209.2 out of 10
20218.7 out of 10
20228.8 out of 10
20238.8 out of 10
20248.7 out of 10
20258.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

When nurses spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

8.5 out of 10

8.5 out of 10 was reported for “When nurses spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: When nurses spoke about your care in front of you, were you included in the conversation?

Reported sample: 456.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.39.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.6 out of 10
20218.5 out of 10
20228.6 out of 10
20238.4 out of 10
20248.8 out of 10
20258.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How did you feel about the length of time you were on the waiting list before your admission to hospital?

6 out of 10

6 out of 10 was reported for “How did you feel about the length of time you were on the waiting list before your admission to hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How did you feel about the length of time you were on the waiting list before your admission to hospital?

Reported sample: 79.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.78.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 06.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20246.5 out of 10
20256 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

In your opinion, were there enough nurses on duty to care for you in hospital?

6.8 out of 10

6.8 out of 10 was reported for “In your opinion, were there enough nurses on duty to care for you in hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: In your opinion, were there enough nurses on duty to care for you in hospital?

Reported sample: 464.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 78.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.1 out of 10
20216.6 out of 10
20226.3 out of 10
20236.8 out of 10
20246.7 out of 10
20256.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, were you told something by a member of staff that was different to what you had been told by another member of staff?

7.4 out of 10

7.4 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, were you told something by a member of staff that was different to what you had been told by another member of staff?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, were you told something by a member of staff that was different to what you had been told by another member of staff?

Reported sample: 416.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.28.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.9. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.9 out of 10
20217.6 out of 10
20227.4 out of 10
20237.1 out of 10
20247.4 out of 10
20257.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did staff looking after you involve you in decisions about your care and treatment?

6.9 out of 10

6.9 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did staff looking after you involve you in decisions about your care and treatment?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did staff looking after you involve you in decisions about your care and treatment?

Reported sample: 436.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.87.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.1 out of 10
20216.6 out of 10
20226.7 out of 10
20236.7 out of 10
20246.9 out of 10
20256.9 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How much information about your condition or treatment was given to you?

8.6 out of 10

8.6 out of 10 was reported for “How much information about your condition or treatment was given to you?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How much information about your condition or treatment was given to you?

Reported sample: 451.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.59.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.8 out of 10
20218.4 out of 10
20228.5 out of 10
20238.5 out of 10
20248.3 out of 10
20258.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you feel able to talk to members of hospital staff about your worries and fears?

7.4 out of 10

7.4 out of 10 was reported for “Did you feel able to talk to members of hospital staff about your worries and fears?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you feel able to talk to members of hospital staff about your worries and fears?

Reported sample: 387.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.28.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.8 out of 10
20217.3 out of 10
20227.3 out of 10
20237.3 out of 10
20247.5 out of 10
20257.4 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you given enough privacy when being examined or treated?

9.3 out of 10

9.3 out of 10 was reported for “Were you given enough privacy when being examined or treated?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you given enough privacy when being examined or treated?

Reported sample: 462.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 9.29.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209.6 out of 10
20219.2 out of 10
20229.4 out of 10
20239.4 out of 10
20249.4 out of 10
20259.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Do you think the hospital staff did everything they could to help control your pain?

8.5 out of 10

8.5 out of 10 was reported for “Do you think the hospital staff did everything they could to help control your pain?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Do you think the hospital staff did everything they could to help control your pain?

Reported sample: 374.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.59.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.8 out of 10
20218.5 out of 10
20228.6 out of 10
20238.4 out of 10
20248.6 out of 10
20258.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you able to get a member of staff to help you when you needed attention?

7.6 out of 10

7.6 out of 10 was reported for “Were you able to get a member of staff to help you when you needed attention?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you able to get a member of staff to help you when you needed attention?

Reported sample: 422.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Much worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.98.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208 out of 10
20217.6 out of 10
20227.5 out of 10
20237.8 out of 10
20247.8 out of 10
20257.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Language needs (e.g. translation, braille)

7.8 out of 10

7.8 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Language needs (e.g. translation, braille)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Language needs (e.g. translation, braille)

Reported sample: 56.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.29.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Cultural needs (e.g. same gender staff)

7.4 out of 10

7.4 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Cultural needs (e.g. same gender staff)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Cultural needs (e.g. same gender staff)

Reported sample: 47.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.79.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Religious needs (e.g. space to pray / meditate)

7.8 out of 10

7.8 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Religious needs (e.g. space to pray / meditate)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Religious needs (e.g. space to pray / meditate)

Reported sample: 32.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.29.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Accessibility needs (e.g. mobility needs, room adaptations)

8.1 out of 10

8.1 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Accessibility needs (e.g. mobility needs, room adaptations)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Accessibility needs (e.g. mobility needs, room adaptations)

Reported sample: 153.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.79.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Dietary needs (e.g. medical, allergy, vegan)

7.7 out of 10

7.7 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Dietary needs (e.g. medical, allergy, vegan)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Dietary needs (e.g. medical, allergy, vegan)

Reported sample: 123.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 78.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Mental health needs (e.g. a quiet space, emotional support)

4.6 out of 10

4.6 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Mental health needs (e.g. a quiet space, emotional support)”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about your care and treatment, did hospital staff take into account the following individual needs? Mental health needs (e.g. a quiet space, emotional support)

Reported sample: 76.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 4.97.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Before being admitted onto a virtual ward, did hospital staff give you information about the risks and benefits of continuing your treatment on a virtual ward?

5.9 out of 10

5.9 out of 10 was reported for “Before being admitted onto a virtual ward, did hospital staff give you information about the risks and benefits of continuing your treatment on a virtual ward?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before being admitted onto a virtual ward, did hospital staff give you information about the risks and benefits of continuing your treatment on a virtual ward?

Reported sample: 35.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.38.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 07.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20247.3 out of 10
20255.9 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you given enough information about the care and treatment you would receive while on a virtual ward?

7 out of 10

7 out of 10 was reported for “Were you given enough information about the care and treatment you would receive while on a virtual ward?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you given enough information about the care and treatment you would receive while on a virtual ward?

Reported sample: 33.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.88.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 07.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20247.1 out of 10
20257 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did staff involve you in decisions about leaving the hospital?

6.1 out of 10

6.1 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did staff involve you in decisions about leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did staff involve you in decisions about leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 449.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.17.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.1 out of 10
20216.5 out of 10
20226.5 out of 10
20236.3 out of 10
20246.4 out of 10
20256.1 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did hospital staff involve your family or carers in decisions about you leaving the hospital?

5.3 out of 10

5.3 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did hospital staff involve your family or carers in decisions about you leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did hospital staff involve your family or carers in decisions about you leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 320.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.26.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you would need any additional equipment in your home, or any changes to your home, after leaving the hospital?

8.1 out of 10

8.1 out of 10 was reported for “Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you would need any additional equipment in your home, or any changes to your home, after leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you would need any additional equipment in your home, or any changes to your home, after leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 171.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.59 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.2 out of 10
20217.7 out of 10
20228 out of 10
20238.3 out of 10
20248.2 out of 10
20258.1 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you given enough notice about when you were going to leave hospital?

6.6 out of 10

6.6 out of 10 was reported for “Were you given enough notice about when you were going to leave hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you given enough notice about when you were going to leave hospital?

Reported sample: 464.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.47.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.3 out of 10
20216.3 out of 10
20226.4 out of 10
20236.3 out of 10
20246.5 out of 10
20256.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Before you left the hospital, were you given any information about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital? This includes any verbal, written or online information.

7.2 out of 10

7.2 out of 10 was reported for “Before you left the hospital, were you given any information about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital? This includes any verbal, written or online information.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before you left the hospital, were you given any information about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital? This includes any verbal, written or online information.

Reported sample: 427.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.28.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20206.9 out of 10
20217.5 out of 10
20227.1 out of 10
20237 out of 10
20246.9 out of 10
20257.2 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

To what extent did you understand the information you were given about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital?

9 out of 10

9 out of 10 was reported for “To what extent did you understand the information you were given about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: To what extent did you understand the information you were given about what you should or should not do after leaving the hospital?

Reported sample: 287.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.79.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20212025 · vertical scale 09. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20219 out of 10
20228.7 out of 10
20238.9 out of 10
20248.8 out of 10
20259 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Before you left the hospital, were your family or carers given the information they needed to care for you at home?

6 out of 10

6 out of 10 was reported for “Before you left the hospital, were your family or carers given the information they needed to care for you at home?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before you left the hospital, were your family or carers given the information they needed to care for you at home?

Reported sample: 275.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.47.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Thinking about any medicine you were to take at home, were you given any of the following?

4 out of 10

4 out of 10 was reported for “Thinking about any medicine you were to take at home, were you given any of the following?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Thinking about any medicine you were to take at home, were you given any of the following?

Reported sample: 336.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 3.85.2 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 04.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20204.7 out of 10
20214.1 out of 10
20223.8 out of 10
20233.8 out of 10
20243.9 out of 10
20254 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How would you rate the quality of information you were given, while you were on the waiting list to be admitted to hospital? This includes verbal, written or online information.

6.8 out of 10

6.8 out of 10 was reported for “How would you rate the quality of information you were given, while you were on the waiting list to be admitted to hospital? This includes verbal, written or online information.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How would you rate the quality of information you were given, while you were on the waiting list to be admitted to hospital? This includes verbal, written or online information.

Reported sample: 80.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.78.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 07.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20247.6 out of 10
20256.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Before you left the hospital, did you know what would happen next with your care?

6.3 out of 10

6.3 out of 10 was reported for “Before you left the hospital, did you know what would happen next with your care?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Before you left the hospital, did you know what would happen next with your care?

Reported sample: 401.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.17.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 06.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20206.6 out of 10
20216 out of 10
20226.2 out of 10
20236.2 out of 10
20246.3 out of 10
20256.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did hospital staff tell you who to contact if you were worried about your condition or treatment after you left hospital?

6.6 out of 10

6.6 out of 10 was reported for “Did hospital staff tell you who to contact if you were worried about your condition or treatment after you left hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did hospital staff tell you who to contact if you were worried about your condition or treatment after you left hospital?

Reported sample: 403.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.88.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.1 out of 10
20216.9 out of 10
20226.5 out of 10
20236.5 out of 10
20246.7 out of 10
20256.6 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you may need any further health or social care services after leaving the hospital? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

7.3 out of 10

7.3 out of 10 was reported for “Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you may need any further health or social care services after leaving the hospital? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did hospital staff discuss with you whether you may need any further health or social care services after leaving the hospital? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

Reported sample: 223.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.18.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.9 out of 10
20217.9 out of 10
20227.2 out of 10
20237.5 out of 10
20248 out of 10
20257.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

After leaving the hospital, did you get enough support from health or social care services to help you recover or manage your condition? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

5.7 out of 10

5.7 out of 10 was reported for “After leaving the hospital, did you get enough support from health or social care services to help you recover or manage your condition? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: After leaving the hospital, did you get enough support from health or social care services to help you recover or manage your condition? Please include any services from a physiotherapist, community nurse or GP, or assistance from social services or the voluntary sector.

Reported sample: 267.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.67.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20242025 · vertical scale 06.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20246.1 out of 10
20255.7 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Overall, did you feel you were treated with kindness and compassion while you were in the hospital?

8.8 out of 10

8.8 out of 10 was reported for “Overall, did you feel you were treated with kindness and compassion while you were in the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall, did you feel you were treated with kindness and compassion while you were in the hospital?

Reported sample: 460.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.69.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 08.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20238.7 out of 10
20248.8 out of 10
20258.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital?

8.9 out of 10

8.9 out of 10 was reported for “Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall, did you feel you were treated with respect and dignity while you were in the hospital?

Reported sample: 459.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.89.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209 out of 10
20218.7 out of 10
20228.8 out of 10
20239 out of 10
20248.8 out of 10
20258.9 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Overall, how was your experience while you were in the hospital? Please give your answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you had a very poor experience and 10 means you had a very good experience.

7.8 out of 10

7.8 out of 10 was reported for “Overall, how was your experience while you were in the hospital? Please give your answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you had a very poor experience and 10 means you had a very good experience.”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Overall, how was your experience while you were in the hospital? Please give your answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 means you had a very poor experience and 10 means you had a very good experience.

Reported sample: 460.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.88.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.2 out of 10
20217.7 out of 10
20227.8 out of 10
20237.8 out of 10
20247.7 out of 10
20257.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How long do you feel you had to wait to get to a bed on a ward, after you arrived at the hospital?

6.5 out of 10

6.5 out of 10 was reported for “How long do you feel you had to wait to get to a bed on a ward, after you arrived at the hospital?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How long do you feel you had to wait to get to a bed on a ward, after you arrived at the hospital?

Reported sample: 445.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.87.8 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 07.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20207.2 out of 10
20216.4 out of 10
20225.8 out of 10
20236.5 out of 10
20246.6 out of 10
20256.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from other patients

6.8 out of 10

6.8 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from other patients”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from other patients

Reported sample: 463.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.77.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 06.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20236.2 out of 10
20246.1 out of 10
20256.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from staff

8.3 out of 10

8.3 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from staff”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Noise from staff

Reported sample: 463.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.89.1 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 08.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20238.3 out of 10
20248 out of 10
20258.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Hospital lighting

8.3 out of 10

8.3 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Hospital lighting”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Hospital lighting

Reported sample: 463.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.98.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 08.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20238.4 out of 10
20248.2 out of 10
20258.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Room temperature

9.3 out of 10

9.3 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Room temperature”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? Room temperature

Reported sample: 463.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.89.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 09.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20239.1 out of 10
20249 out of 10
20259.3 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? I was not prevented from sleeping

3.8 out of 10

3.8 out of 10 was reported for “Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? I was not prevented from sleeping”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Were you ever prevented from sleeping at night by any of the following? I was not prevented from sleeping

Reported sample: 463.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 3.14.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20232025 · vertical scale 03.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20233.3 out of 10
20243.3 out of 10
20253.8 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

How clean was the hospital room or ward that you were in?

8.9 out of 10

8.9 out of 10 was reported for “How clean was the hospital room or ward that you were in?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: How clean was the hospital room or ward that you were in?

Reported sample: 461.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.59.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 09.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20209.1 out of 10
20219.1 out of 10
20229 out of 10
20239 out of 10
20249.1 out of 10
20258.9 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Did you get enough help from staff to wash or keep yourself clean?

7.5 out of 10

7.5 out of 10 was reported for “Did you get enough help from staff to wash or keep yourself clean?”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Did you get enough help from staff to wash or keep yourself clean?

Reported sample: 325.

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.58.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

20202025 · vertical scale 08.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
20208.4 out of 10
20217.7 out of 10
20227.8 out of 10
20238 out of 10
20247.3 out of 10
20257.5 out of 10

2025 survey NHS trust

Admission to hospital

6.4 out of 10

6.4 out of 10 was reported for “Admission to hospital”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Admission to hospital

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.47.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Kindness and compassion

8.8 out of 10

8.8 out of 10 was reported for “Kindness and compassion”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Kindness and compassion

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.69.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

The hospital and ward

7.6 out of 10

7.6 out of 10 was reported for “The hospital and ward”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: The hospital and ward

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.18 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Basic needs

7.8 out of 10

7.8 out of 10 was reported for “Basic needs”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Basic needs

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 7.58.6 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Doctors

8.5 out of 10

8.5 out of 10 was reported for “Doctors”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Doctors

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.49.3 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Nurses

8.1 out of 10

8.1 out of 10 was reported for “Nurses”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Nurses

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 8.18.9 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Your care and treatment

7.9 out of 10

7.9 out of 10 was reported for “Your care and treatment”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Your care and treatment

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 88.7 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Individual needs

7.2 out of 10

7.2 out of 10 was reported for “Individual needs”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Individual needs

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.69 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Virtual wards

6.4 out of 10

6.4 out of 10 was reported for “Virtual wards”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Virtual wards

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: About the same.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 5.78.4 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

2025 survey NHS trust

Leaving hospital

6.5 out of 10

6.5 out of 10 was reported for “Leaving hospital”. Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units.

Definition and source

Published measure: Leaving hospital

Adults aged 16+ who stayed overnight, mainly discharged in November 2025; excludes maternity and psychiatric units. Scores standardised by admission route, age and sex. Higher scores indicate more positive reported experience. Published comparison bands concern most other reporting units, not a direct significance test between two selected providers. Do not rank providers or add up comparison bands. Unreported questions can reflect fewer than 30 responses; missing scores are not zero. Source reporting unit: The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn, NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher comparison band: Somewhat worse.

Publisher 95% expected range (not a confidence interval around this score): 6.57.5 out of 10.

Adult inpatient survey: trust results · Coverage and method

For your decision Check whether a site-level survey is also available for the hospital you would attend.

Referral-to-treatment pathways

How long treatment pathways had already been waiting at the reporting date. One person can have more than one pathway.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

64.3%

Total

64.3% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 24,150 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 24,150; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

24,150 waiting-list entries

Total

24,150 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,649 waiting-list entries

General Surgery Service

1,649 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

Explore 96 additional measures

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,307 waiting-list entries

Urology Service

1,307 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,034 waiting-list entries

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

2,034 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,878 waiting-list entries

Ear Nose and Throat Service

2,878 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,975 waiting-list entries

Ophthalmology Service

1,975 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

465 waiting-list entries

Oral Surgery Service

465 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

63 waiting-list entries

Plastic Surgery Service

63 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Plastic Surgery Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

253 waiting-list entries

General Internal Medicine Service

253 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,055 waiting-list entries

Gastroenterology Service

1,055 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,379 waiting-list entries

Cardiology Service

1,379 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,314 waiting-list entries

Dermatology Service

2,314 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

962 waiting-list entries

Respiratory Medicine Service

962 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,209 waiting-list entries

Neurology Service

1,209 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

604 waiting-list entries

Rheumatology Service

604 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

52 waiting-list entries

Elderly Medicine Service

52 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,423 waiting-list entries

Gynaecology Service

1,423 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

1,156 waiting-list entries

Other - Medical Services

1,156 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

630 waiting-list entries

Other - Paediatric Services

630 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

2,321 waiting-list entries

Other - Surgical Services

2,321 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Still on the waiting list

421 waiting-list entries

Other - Other Services

421 referral-to-treatment records were still open at the end of July 2026. One person may have more than one record.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: ongoing pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

53%

General Surgery Service

53% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,649 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,649; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

69.8%

Urology Service

69.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,307 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,307; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

52.2%

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

52.2% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,034 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,034; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

54.6%

Ear Nose and Throat Service

54.6% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,878 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,878; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

64.7%

Ophthalmology Service

64.7% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,975 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,975; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

78.9%

Oral Surgery Service

78.9% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 465 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 465; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

71.4%

Plastic Surgery Service

71.4% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 63 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Plastic Surgery Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 63; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

96.1%

General Internal Medicine Service

96.1% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 253 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 253; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

80.7%

Gastroenterology Service

80.7% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,055 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,055; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

65.8%

Cardiology Service

65.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,379 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,379; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

61.6%

Dermatology Service

61.6% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,314 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,314; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

53.7%

Respiratory Medicine Service

53.7% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 962 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 962; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

58.5%

Neurology Service

58.5% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,209 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,209; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

79.5%

Rheumatology Service

79.5% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 604 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 604; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

96.2%

Elderly Medicine Service

96.2% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 52 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 52; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

77.6%

Gynaecology Service

77.6% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,423 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,423; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

79.9%

Other - Medical Services

79.9% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 1,156 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,156; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

70.8%

Other - Paediatric Services

70.8% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 630 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 630; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

67.6%

Other - Surgical Services

67.6% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 2,321 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,321; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 18 weeks or less

46.6%

Other - Other Services

46.6% of eligible open waiting-list records had already waited 18 weeks or less. This is time elapsed, not time left before treatment.

Based on 421 eligible waiting-list entries with a known start date.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: ongoing pathways within 18 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 421; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Uses pathways with a known clock start date. This is elapsed waiting time, not a prediction of the remaining wait.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

2.4%

General Surgery Service

2.4% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,649 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,649; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.5%

Urology Service

1.5% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,307 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,307; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

4.8%

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

4.8% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,034 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,034; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.4%

Ear Nose and Throat Service

1.4% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,878 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,878; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.6%

Ophthalmology Service

1.6% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,975 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,975; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.9%

Oral Surgery Service

1.9% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 465 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 465; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Plastic Surgery Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 63 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Plastic Surgery Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 63; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

General Internal Medicine Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 253 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 253; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Gastroenterology Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,055 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,055; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0.1%

Cardiology Service

0.1% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,379 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,379; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

<0.1%

Dermatology Service

<0.1% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,314 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,314; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Respiratory Medicine Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 962 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 962; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Neurology Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,209 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,209; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Rheumatology Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 604 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 604; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0%

Elderly Medicine Service

0% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 52 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 52; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.1%

Gynaecology Service

1.1% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,423 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,423; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

1.2%

Total

1.2% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 24,150 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 24,150; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0.1%

Other - Medical Services

0.1% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 1,156 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,156; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

2.1%

Other - Paediatric Services

2.1% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 630 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 630; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0.3%

Other - Surgical Services

0.3% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 2,321 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,321; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting over a year

0.2%

Other - Other Services

0.2% of open waiting-list records had already waited more than a year. Your referral team can explain your own next step.

Based on 421 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: ongoing pathways over 52 weeks

The calculation uses a denominator of 421; see the source for the eligible group.

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

180 pathways

General Surgery Service

180 pathways was reported for “General Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

33 pathways

General Surgery Service

33 pathways was reported for “General Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Urology Service: completed admitted pathways

148 pathways

Urology Service

148 pathways was reported for “Urology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Urology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

95 pathways

Urology Service

95 pathways was reported for “Urology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Urology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed admitted pathways

155 pathways

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

155 pathways was reported for “Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed non-admitted pathways

131 pathways

Trauma and Orthopaedic Service

131 pathways was reported for “Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Trauma and Orthopaedic Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed admitted pathways

79 pathways

Ear Nose and Throat Service

79 pathways was reported for “Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed non-admitted pathways

285 pathways

Ear Nose and Throat Service

285 pathways was reported for “Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ear Nose and Throat Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ophthalmology Service: completed admitted pathways

151 pathways

Ophthalmology Service

151 pathways was reported for “Ophthalmology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Ophthalmology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

215 pathways

Ophthalmology Service

215 pathways was reported for “Ophthalmology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ophthalmology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Oral Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

59 pathways

Oral Surgery Service

59 pathways was reported for “Oral Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Oral Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

41 pathways

Oral Surgery Service

41 pathways was reported for “Oral Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Oral Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Plastic Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

5 pathways

Plastic Surgery Service

5 pathways was reported for “Plastic Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Plastic Surgery Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Plastic Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

8 pathways

Plastic Surgery Service

8 pathways was reported for “Plastic Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Plastic Surgery Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Internal Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

23 pathways

General Internal Medicine Service

23 pathways was reported for “General Internal Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

General Internal Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

4 pathways

General Internal Medicine Service

4 pathways was reported for “General Internal Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: General Internal Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gastroenterology Service: completed admitted pathways

3 pathways

Gastroenterology Service

3 pathways was reported for “Gastroenterology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gastroenterology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

184 pathways

Gastroenterology Service

184 pathways was reported for “Gastroenterology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gastroenterology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cardiology Service: completed admitted pathways

9 pathways

Cardiology Service

9 pathways was reported for “Cardiology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cardiology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

121 pathways

Cardiology Service

121 pathways was reported for “Cardiology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cardiology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Dermatology Service: completed admitted pathways

311 pathways

Dermatology Service

311 pathways was reported for “Dermatology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Dermatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

86 pathways

Dermatology Service

86 pathways was reported for “Dermatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dermatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Respiratory Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

3 pathways

Respiratory Medicine Service

3 pathways was reported for “Respiratory Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Respiratory Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

66 pathways

Respiratory Medicine Service

66 pathways was reported for “Respiratory Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Respiratory Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Neurology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

65 pathways

Neurology Service

65 pathways was reported for “Neurology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Neurology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Rheumatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

92 pathways

Rheumatology Service

92 pathways was reported for “Rheumatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Rheumatology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Elderly Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

28 pathways

Elderly Medicine Service

28 pathways was reported for “Elderly Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Elderly Medicine Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gynaecology Service: completed admitted pathways

60 pathways

Gynaecology Service

60 pathways was reported for “Gynaecology Service: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Gynaecology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

109 pathways

Gynaecology Service

109 pathways was reported for “Gynaecology Service: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Gynaecology Service: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Total: completed admitted pathways

1,279 pathways

Total

1,279 pathways was reported for “Total: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Total: completed non-admitted pathways

2,151 pathways

Total

2,151 pathways was reported for “Total: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Medical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

228 pathways

Other - Medical Services

228 pathways was reported for “Other - Medical Services: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Medical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Paediatric Services: completed non-admitted pathways

132 pathways

Other - Paediatric Services

132 pathways was reported for “Other - Paediatric Services: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Paediatric Services: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Surgical Services: completed admitted pathways

78 pathways

Other - Surgical Services

78 pathways was reported for “Other - Surgical Services: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Surgical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

228 pathways

Other - Surgical Services

228 pathways was reported for “Other - Surgical Services: completed non-admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Surgical Services: completed non-admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Other - Other Services: completed admitted pathways

15 pathways

Other - Other Services

15 pathways was reported for “Other - Other Services: completed admitted pathways”. Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners.

Definition and source

Published measure: Other - Other Services: completed admitted pathways

Provider-level NHS RTT pathways aggregated across commissioners. A person can have multiple pathways. Specialty figures do not identify the wait for a particular procedure or hospital site. Completed admitted and non-admitted pathways describe different cohorts.

Referral-to-treatment waiting times · Coverage and method

For your decision Ask which specialty and hospital site will handle your referral, and about your own expected wait.

Diagnostic tests and waiting lists

Historical diagnostic waiting lists and completed test activity describe different groups.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

2,486 waiting-list entries

2,486 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: AUDIOLOGY_ASSESSMENTS: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

229 waiting-list entries

229 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: COLONOSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

1,332 waiting-list entries

1,332 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: CT: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

Explore 36 additional measures

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

59 waiting-list entries

59 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: CYSTOSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

115 waiting-list entries

115 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: DEXA_SCAN: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

1,296 waiting-list entries

1,296 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

34 waiting-list entries

34 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: FLEXI_SIGMOIDOSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

249 waiting-list entries

249 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: GASTROSCOPY: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

1,590 waiting-list entries

1,590 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRI: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

2,588 waiting-list entries

2,588 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: NON_OBSTETRIC_ULTRASOUND: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

203 waiting-list entries

203 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: PERIPHERAL_NEUROPHYS: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

10,209 waiting-list entries

10,209 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: TOTAL: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

On the test waiting list

28 waiting-list entries

28 test waiting-list records were reported at the end of July 2026. A person can be waiting for more than one test.

Definition and source

Published measure: URODYNAMICS: patients on the reported waiting list

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

89.2%

89.2% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 2,486 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: AUDIOLOGY_ASSESSMENTS: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,486; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

10.9%

10.9% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 229 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: COLONOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 229; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

15.8%

15.8% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 1,332 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: CT: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,332; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

45.8%

45.8% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 59 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: CYSTOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 59; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

0%

0% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 115 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: DEXA_SCAN: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 115; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

63.6%

63.6% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 1,296 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,296; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

11.8%

11.8% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 34 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: FLEXI_SIGMOIDOSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 34; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

12.9%

12.9% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 249 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: GASTROSCOPY: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 249; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

20.7%

20.7% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 1,590 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRI: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,590; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

23.9%

23.9% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 2,588 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: NON_OBSTETRIC_ULTRASOUND: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 2,588; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

0%

0% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 203 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: PERIPHERAL_NEUROPHYS: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 203; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

42%

42% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 10,209 eligible waiting-list entries.

Definition and source

Published measure: TOTAL: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 10,209; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Already waiting 6 weeks or longer

3.6%

3.6% of eligible test waiting-list records had already waited six weeks or longer. It does not predict the remaining wait for your test.

Based on 28 eligible waiting-list entries. A small number of records can make this percentage change sharply; avoid drawing strong comparisons.

Definition and source

Published measure: URODYNAMICS: waiting six weeks or longer

The calculation uses a denominator of 28; see the source for the eligible group.

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

91 tests

91 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: AUDIOLOGY_ASSESSMENTS: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

247 tests

247 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: COLONOSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

3,080 tests

3,080 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: CT: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

254 tests

254 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: CYSTOSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

197 tests

197 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: DEXA_SCAN: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

455 tests

455 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

40 tests

40 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: FLEXI_SIGMOIDOSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

282 tests

282 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: GASTROSCOPY: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

1,335 tests

1,335 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRI: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

3,346 tests

3,346 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: NON_OBSTETRIC_ULTRASOUND: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

198 tests

198 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: PERIPHERAL_NEUROPHYS: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

9,549 tests

9,549 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: TOTAL: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Tests recorded during the month

24 tests

24 tests was reported for “Tests recorded during the month”. Reported tests carried out during the month, including planned and unscheduled work. This is different from the number still waiting.

Definition and source

Published measure: URODYNAMICS: reported diagnostic activity

Diagnostic waiting list and activity at reporting-provider level. Planned and unscheduled activity are separate from the waiting-list cohort. Not a live booking estimate.

Diagnostic waiting times and activity · Coverage and method

For your decision Confirm the test, referral route and site before comparing providers.

Cancer waiting-time standards

Published performance against specific cancer pathway standards, with separate patient groups.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer faster diagnosis within 28 days

73.3%

73.3% was reported for “Cancer faster diagnosis within 28 days”. July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer faster diagnosis within 28 days

The calculation uses a denominator of 1,482; see the source for the eligible group.

July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics. The cancer standards have distinct eligibility, start points and cohorts; they cannot be combined into an overall score.

Cancer waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat

89.8%

89.8% was reported for “Cancer treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat”. July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat

The calculation uses a denominator of 147; see the source for the eligible group.

July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics. The cancer standards have distinct eligibility, start points and cohorts; they cannot be combined into an overall score.

Cancer waiting times · Coverage and method

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer treatment within the combined 62-day standard

59.5%

59.5% was reported for “Cancer treatment within the combined 62-day standard”. July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer treatment within the combined 62-day standard

The calculation uses a denominator of 97.5; see the source for the eligible group.

July 2026 provisional provider-based statistics. The cancer standards have distinct eligibility, start points and cohorts; they cannot be combined into an overall score.

Cancer waiting times · Coverage and method

For your decision Your clinical team can explain the next step and timescale for your own referral.

Patient-reported hip and knee outcomes

Patient-reported change after hip or knee replacement, adjusted by the publisher for the specified cohort.

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

Explore 105 additional measures

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

82 pairs

82 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

85 pairs

85 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

18.1 EQ VAS points

18.1 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

78.9 EQ VAS points

78.9 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

77.2 EQ VAS points

77.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

57.2 EQ VAS points

57.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

20 EQ VAS points

20 EQ VAS points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

57 pairs

57 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

79 pairs

79 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

9 pairs

9 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

13 pairs

13 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

23.7 Oxford Hip Score points

23.7 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

41.2 Oxford Hip Score points

41.2 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

40.3 Oxford Hip Score points

40.3 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

15.9 Oxford Hip Score points

15.9 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

24.4 Oxford Hip Score points

24.4 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

91 pairs

91 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

91 pairs

91 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hip Replacement Primary · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.7 EQ-5D Index points

0.7 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.7 EQ-5D Index points

0.7 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

56 pairs

56 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

71 pairs

71 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

7 pairs

7 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

8 pairs

8 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

9.2 EQ VAS points

9.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

74.2 EQ VAS points

74.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

73.7 EQ VAS points

73.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

62.7 EQ VAS points

62.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

11 EQ VAS points

11 EQ VAS points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

44 pairs

44 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

70 pairs

70 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

12 pairs

12 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

14 pairs

14 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

15 Oxford Knee Score points

15 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

34.4 Oxford Knee Score points

34.4 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

33.8 Oxford Knee Score points

33.8 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

17.5 Oxford Knee Score points

17.5 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

16.3 Oxford Knee Score points

16.3 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

72 pairs

72 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

78 pairs

78 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

6 pairs

6 pairs was reported for “Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Knee Replacement Primary · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.8 EQ-5D Index points

0.8 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.5 EQ-5D Index points

0.5 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

82 pairs

82 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

85 pairs

85 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

1 pairs

1 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

2 pairs

2 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 85.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

17.7 EQ VAS points

17.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

78.5 EQ VAS points

78.5 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

77.2 EQ VAS points

77.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

57.2 EQ VAS points

57.2 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

20 EQ VAS points

20 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

57 pairs

57 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

79 pairs

79 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

9 pairs

9 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

13 pairs

13 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 79.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

23.8 Oxford Hip Score points

23.8 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

41.3 Oxford Hip Score points

41.3 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

40.3 Oxford Hip Score points

40.3 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

15.9 Oxford Hip Score points

15.9 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

24.4 Oxford Hip Score points

24.4 Oxford Hip Score points was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

91 pairs

91 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

91 pairs

91 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Hip Replacement · Oxford Hip Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 91.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

0.7 EQ-5D Index points

0.7 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

0.7 EQ-5D Index points

0.7 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

0.4 EQ-5D Index points

0.4 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

0.3 EQ-5D Index points

0.3 EQ-5D Index points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

56 pairs

56 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

71 pairs

71 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

7 pairs

7 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

8 pairs

8 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ-5D Index: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 71.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

8.6 EQ VAS points

8.6 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

73.5 EQ VAS points

73.5 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

73.7 EQ VAS points

73.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

62.7 EQ VAS points

62.7 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

11 EQ VAS points

11 EQ VAS points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

44 pairs

44 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

70 pairs

70 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

12 pairs

12 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

14 pairs

14 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · EQ VAS: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 70.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

14.9 Oxford Knee Score points

14.9 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted health gain

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

34.1 Oxford Knee Score points

34.1 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Case-mix-adjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

33.8 Oxford Knee Score points

33.8 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted postoperative score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

17.5 Oxford Knee Score points

17.5 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted preoperative score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

16.3 Oxford Knee Score points

16.3 Oxford Knee Score points was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Unadjusted health gain

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

72 pairs

72 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with improvement

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

78 pairs

78 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Modelled questionnaire pairs

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

0 pairs

0 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with unchanged score

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

2024/25 reporting provider

Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

6 pairs

6 pairs was reported for “Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration”. Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025.

Definition and source

Published measure: Total Knee Replacement · Oxford Knee Score: Questionnaire pairs with deterioration

Reported sample: 78.

Published NHS-funded hip or knee replacement questionnaire aggregates for April 2024–March 2025. Primary and revision procedures and the different questionnaires are separate cohorts. Results describe respondents with modelled questionnaire pairs, not every surgical patient or a personal prediction. Adjusted scores account for measured case mix; small differences do not establish statistically significant differences. Case-mix-adjusted results are withheld below 30 modelled pairs. Negative health gains and EQ-5D scores can be valid. Source reporting code: RCX.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures: hip and knee replacement · Coverage and method

For your decision Compare the same operation and cohort. Your clinician can discuss what an outcome might mean for you.

Hospital trends

Each measure retains its own reporting period. A&E reporting uses a changed footprint from April 2026; earlier points are excluded from our A&E trends.

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

A&E 12 hour performance

10.8%

10.8% was reported for “A&E 12 hour performance”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: A&E 12 hour performance

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported. A&E footprint methodology changed from April 2026; earlier points are excluded from this comparison.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2026-042026-07 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2026-0412.2%
2026-0514.4%
2026-0614.1%
2026-0710.8%

July 2026 NHS reporting provider

A&E 4 hour performance

64.6%

64.6% was reported for “A&E 4 hour performance”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: A&E 4 hour performance

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported. A&E footprint methodology changed from April 2026; earlier points are excluded from this comparison.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2026-042026-07 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2026-0466.6%
2026-0564.2%
2026-0661.4%
2026-0764.6%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer 31 Day Treatment Standard

94.7%

94.7% was reported for “Cancer 31 Day Treatment Standard”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer 31 Day Treatment Standard

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0684.9%
2025-0788.8%
2025-0888%
2025-0986.6%
2025-1088.9%
2025-1193.5%
2025-1290.7%
2026-0191%
2026-0295.7%
2026-0398.6%
2026-0496.3%
2026-0596%
2026-0694.7%
Explore 5 additional measures

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer 62 Day Combined Performance

48.6%

48.6% was reported for “Cancer 62 Day Combined Performance”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer 62 Day Combined Performance

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0653.6%
2025-0750.6%
2025-0847.9%
2025-0953.5%
2025-1060.3%
2025-1155.3%
2025-1252.1%
2026-0154.3%
2026-0252.8%
2026-0356.5%
2026-0450.5%
2026-0553.7%
2026-0648.6%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Cancer Faster Diagnostic Standard

68.5%

68.5% was reported for “Cancer Faster Diagnostic Standard”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cancer Faster Diagnostic Standard

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0670%
2025-0769.5%
2025-0860.1%
2025-0969.6%
2025-1067.7%
2025-1172.3%
2025-1270.8%
2026-0160.9%
2026-0272.9%
2026-0369.9%
2026-0462.7%
2026-0568.6%
2026-0668.5%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Diagnostics proportion waiting over 6 weeks

37.3%

37.3% was reported for “Diagnostics proportion waiting over 6 weeks”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Diagnostics proportion waiting over 6 weeks

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0645.3%
2025-0749%
2025-0850.2%
2025-0945.4%
2025-1040.9%
2025-1138.9%
2025-1241.8%
2026-0141.4%
2026-0232.8%
2026-0331.5%
2026-0436%
2026-0535.6%
2026-0637.3%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Percentage waiting more than 52 weeks for elective treatment

1.5%

1.5% was reported for “Percentage waiting more than 52 weeks for elective treatment”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Percentage waiting more than 52 weeks for elective treatment

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-062.2%
2025-071.9%
2025-082%
2025-092%
2025-101.6%
2025-111.4%
2025-121.4%
2026-011.5%
2026-021.4%
2026-031.3%
2026-041.4%
2026-051.7%
2026-061.5%

June 2026 NHS reporting provider

Percentage waiting within 18 weeks for elective treatment

62.8%

62.8% was reported for “Percentage waiting within 18 weeks for elective treatment”. NHS England acute-provider table.

Definition and source

Published measure: Percentage waiting within 18 weeks for elective treatment

NHS England acute-provider table. Each measure retains its own reporting month. Site attribution is not supported.

Acute provider table and time series · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0100%. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0657.3%
2025-0756.2%
2025-0858.1%
2025-0955.1%
2025-1055.3%
2025-1155.6%
2025-1254.1%
2026-0153.9%
2026-0254.1%
2026-0358.5%
2026-0459%
2026-0561.5%
2026-0662.8%

Hospital and community workforce

Reported staff capacity across the organisation and its services.

June 2026 reporting organisation

All staff groups: Full-time equivalent

3,427.1 FTE

3,427.1 FTE was reported for “All staff groups: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: All staff groups: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 03,640.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-063,612.9 FTE
2025-073,625.2 FTE
2025-083,603.7 FTE
2025-093,620.1 FTE
2025-103,640.6 FTE
2025-113,635.1 FTE
2025-123,632.1 FTE
2026-013,634.1 FTE
2026-023,634.6 FTE
2026-033,621.7 FTE
2026-043,455.8 FTE
2026-053,439.6 FTE
2026-063,427.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

All staff groups: Headcount

3,916 staff

3,916 staff was reported for “All staff groups: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: All staff groups: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 04,170. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-064,123 staff
2025-074,130 staff
2025-084,104 staff
2025-094,121 staff
2025-104,170 staff
2025-114,169 staff
2025-124,165 staff
2026-014,168 staff
2026-024,165 staff
2026-034,147 staff
2026-043,959 staff
2026-053,933 staff
2026-063,916 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

NHS infrastructure support: Full-time equivalent

546.5 FTE

546.5 FTE was reported for “NHS infrastructure support: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: NHS infrastructure support: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0679. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06668.1 FTE
2025-07669 FTE
2025-08669.2 FTE
2025-09667.4 FTE
2025-10678 FTE
2025-11677.7 FTE
2025-12679 FTE
2026-01678.4 FTE
2026-02678.9 FTE
2026-03671.1 FTE
2026-04560.6 FTE
2026-05553.3 FTE
2026-06546.5 FTE
Explore 41 additional measures

June 2026 reporting organisation

NHS infrastructure support: Headcount

695 staff

695 staff was reported for “NHS infrastructure support: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: NHS infrastructure support: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0847. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06813 staff
2025-07811 staff
2025-08810 staff
2025-09807 staff
2025-10839 staff
2025-11846 staff
2025-12846 staff
2026-01846 staff
2026-02847 staff
2026-03833 staff
2026-04715 staff
2026-05702 staff
2026-06695 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Central functions: Full-time equivalent

132.6 FTE

132.6 FTE was reported for “Central functions: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Central functions: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0228.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06228.3 FTE
2025-07227.3 FTE
2025-08226.1 FTE
2025-09226.3 FTE
2025-10220.9 FTE
2025-11220.8 FTE
2025-12222.4 FTE
2026-01222.4 FTE
2026-02223.4 FTE
2026-03217.5 FTE
2026-04136.9 FTE
2026-05134.8 FTE
2026-06132.6 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Central functions: Headcount

144 staff

144 staff was reported for “Central functions: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Central functions: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0245. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06245 staff
2025-07245 staff
2025-08244 staff
2025-09245 staff
2025-10239 staff
2025-11240 staff
2025-12241 staff
2026-01241 staff
2026-02242 staff
2026-03235 staff
2026-04148 staff
2026-05146 staff
2026-06144 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Hotel, property & estates: Full-time equivalent

352.4 FTE

352.4 FTE was reported for “Hotel, property & estates: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hotel, property & estates: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0374.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06357 FTE
2025-07358.9 FTE
2025-08358.3 FTE
2025-09356.3 FTE
2025-10371.3 FTE
2025-11371.4 FTE
2025-12371.6 FTE
2026-01374.1 FTE
2026-02374.7 FTE
2026-03372.6 FTE
2026-04365.2 FTE
2026-05359.1 FTE
2026-06352.4 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Hotel, property & estates: Headcount

488 staff

488 staff was reported for “Hotel, property & estates: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hotel, property & estates: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0524. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06484 staff
2025-07482 staff
2025-08480 staff
2025-09476 staff
2025-10513 staff
2025-11520 staff
2025-12519 staff
2026-01523 staff
2026-02524 staff
2026-03517 staff
2026-04508 staff
2026-05496 staff
2026-06488 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Managers: Full-time equivalent

37.7 FTE

37.7 FTE was reported for “Managers: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Managers: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 059.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0654.8 FTE
2025-0755.8 FTE
2025-0855.8 FTE
2025-0955.9 FTE
2025-1058.9 FTE
2025-1159.5 FTE
2025-1258.9 FTE
2026-0155.9 FTE
2026-0254.8 FTE
2026-0357.1 FTE
2026-0438.5 FTE
2026-0537.5 FTE
2026-0637.7 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Managers: Headcount

39 staff

39 staff was reported for “Managers: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Managers: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 060. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0656 staff
2025-0757 staff
2025-0857 staff
2025-0957 staff
2025-1060 staff
2025-1160 staff
2025-1260 staff
2026-0157 staff
2026-0256 staff
2026-0358 staff
2026-0439 staff
2026-0538 staff
2026-0639 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Senior managers: Full-time equivalent

23.8 FTE

23.8 FTE was reported for “Senior managers: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Senior managers: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 029. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0628 FTE
2025-0727 FTE
2025-0829 FTE
2025-0929 FTE
2025-1027 FTE
2025-1126 FTE
2025-1226 FTE
2026-0126 FTE
2026-0226 FTE
2026-0324 FTE
2026-0420 FTE
2026-0522 FTE
2026-0623.8 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Senior managers: Headcount

24 staff

24 staff was reported for “Senior managers: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Senior managers: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 029. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0628 staff
2025-0727 staff
2025-0829 staff
2025-0929 staff
2025-1027 staff
2025-1126 staff
2025-1226 staff
2026-0126 staff
2026-0226 staff
2026-0324 staff
2026-0420 staff
2026-0522 staff
2026-0624 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Professionally qualified clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

1,854.5 FTE

1,854.5 FTE was reported for “Professionally qualified clinical staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Professionally qualified clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,879.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,838.6 FTE
2025-071,862.2 FTE
2025-081,850.4 FTE
2025-091,865.5 FTE
2025-101,879.8 FTE
2025-111,878.5 FTE
2025-121,879.3 FTE
2026-011,875 FTE
2026-021,875.6 FTE
2026-031,874.3 FTE
2026-041,872.7 FTE
2026-051,864 FTE
2026-061,854.5 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Professionally qualified clinical staff: Headcount

2,002 staff

2,002 staff was reported for “Professionally qualified clinical staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Professionally qualified clinical staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 02,032. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,983 staff
2025-072,009 staff
2025-081,997 staff
2025-092,014 staff
2025-102,032 staff
2025-112,031 staff
2025-122,032 staff
2026-012,028 staff
2026-022,026 staff
2026-032,024 staff
2026-042,022 staff
2026-052,012 staff
2026-062,002 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Ambulance staff: Full-time equivalent

1 FTE

1 FTE was reported for “Ambulance staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ambulance staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-062 FTE
2025-072 FTE
2025-082 FTE
2025-092 FTE
2025-102 FTE
2025-112 FTE
2025-122 FTE
2026-011 FTE
2026-021 FTE
2026-031 FTE
2026-041 FTE
2026-051 FTE
2026-061 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Ambulance staff: Headcount

1 staff

1 staff was reported for “Ambulance staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ambulance staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-062 staff
2025-072 staff
2025-082 staff
2025-092 staff
2025-102 staff
2025-112 staff
2025-122 staff
2026-011 staff
2026-021 staff
2026-031 staff
2026-041 staff
2026-051 staff
2026-061 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - All grades: Full-time equivalent

507.1 FTE

507.1 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - All grades: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - All grades: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0520.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06480.6 FTE
2025-07520.6 FTE
2025-08506 FTE
2025-09504.2 FTE
2025-10503.6 FTE
2025-11502.8 FTE
2025-12506 FTE
2026-01504 FTE
2026-02504.8 FTE
2026-03510 FTE
2026-04508.5 FTE
2026-05509 FTE
2026-06507.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - All grades: Headcount

525 staff

525 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - All grades: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - All grades: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0538. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06495 staff
2025-07538 staff
2025-08524 staff
2025-09523 staff
2025-10522 staff
2025-11521 staff
2025-12525 staff
2026-01523 staff
2026-02523 staff
2026-03528 staff
2026-04527 staff
2026-05527 staff
2026-06525 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Full-time equivalent

17.6 FTE

17.6 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 019.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0619.3 FTE
2025-0719.3 FTE
2025-0818.3 FTE
2025-0918.3 FTE
2025-1018.3 FTE
2025-1118.3 FTE
2025-1218.3 FTE
2026-0118.3 FTE
2026-0218.3 FTE
2026-0318.3 FTE
2026-0418.3 FTE
2026-0517.6 FTE
2026-0617.6 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Headcount

20 staff

20 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Associate Specialist: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 022. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0622 staff
2025-0722 staff
2025-0821 staff
2025-0921 staff
2025-1021 staff
2025-1121 staff
2025-1221 staff
2026-0121 staff
2026-0221 staff
2026-0321 staff
2026-0421 staff
2026-0520 staff
2026-0620 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Consultant: Full-time equivalent

157.7 FTE

157.7 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Consultant: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Consultant: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0160.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06153 FTE
2025-07152.7 FTE
2025-08153.6 FTE
2025-09154.8 FTE
2025-10156.8 FTE
2025-11157.7 FTE
2025-12158.7 FTE
2026-01158.9 FTE
2026-02159.1 FTE
2026-03160.2 FTE
2026-04158.2 FTE
2026-05157.7 FTE
2026-06157.7 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Consultant: Headcount

165 staff

165 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Consultant: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Consultant: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0168. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06161 staff
2025-07161 staff
2025-08162 staff
2025-09163 staff
2025-10165 staff
2025-11166 staff
2025-12168 staff
2026-01168 staff
2026-02168 staff
2026-03168 staff
2026-04166 staff
2026-05165 staff
2026-06165 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Core Training: Full-time equivalent

83.8 FTE

83.8 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Core Training: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Core Training: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 084.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0682.5 FTE
2025-0776.4 FTE
2025-0883.9 FTE
2025-0983.7 FTE
2025-1084.7 FTE
2025-1183.7 FTE
2025-1281.9 FTE
2026-0183.9 FTE
2026-0282.1 FTE
2026-0381.9 FTE
2026-0482.8 FTE
2026-0582.8 FTE
2026-0683.8 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Core Training: Headcount

85 staff

85 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Core Training: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Core Training: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 086. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0680 staff
2025-0777 staff
2025-0885 staff
2025-0985 staff
2025-1086 staff
2025-1185 staff
2025-1283 staff
2026-0185 staff
2026-0283 staff
2026-0383 staff
2026-0484 staff
2026-0584 staff
2026-0685 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Full-time equivalent

48 FTE

48 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 080. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0633 FTE
2025-0780 FTE
2025-0853 FTE
2025-0952 FTE
2025-1050 FTE
2025-1150 FTE
2025-1248 FTE
2026-0148 FTE
2026-0248 FTE
2026-0348 FTE
2026-0448 FTE
2026-0548 FTE
2026-0648 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Headcount

48 staff

48 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 1: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 080. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0633 staff
2025-0780 staff
2025-0853 staff
2025-0952 staff
2025-1050 staff
2025-1150 staff
2025-1248 staff
2026-0148 staff
2026-0248 staff
2026-0348 staff
2026-0448 staff
2026-0548 staff
2026-0648 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Full-time equivalent

71.5 FTE

71.5 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 073.5. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0670.5 FTE
2025-0773.5 FTE
2025-0869.6 FTE
2025-0967.6 FTE
2025-1068.6 FTE
2025-1168.4 FTE
2025-1271.4 FTE
2026-0170.4 FTE
2026-0271.6 FTE
2026-0372.5 FTE
2026-0471.5 FTE
2026-0572.5 FTE
2026-0671.5 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Headcount

72 staff

72 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Foundation Doctor Year 2: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 074. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0671 staff
2025-0774 staff
2025-0870 staff
2025-0968 staff
2025-1069 staff
2025-1169 staff
2025-1272 staff
2026-0171 staff
2026-0272 staff
2026-0373 staff
2026-0472 staff
2026-0573 staff
2026-0672 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Full-time equivalent

61.2 FTE

61.2 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 062.3. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0660.5 FTE
2025-0758.7 FTE
2025-0860.7 FTE
2025-0962 FTE
2025-1059.2 FTE
2025-1159.2 FTE
2025-1259.2 FTE
2026-0158.2 FTE
2026-0262.3 FTE
2026-0362.3 FTE
2026-0461.3 FTE
2026-0561.3 FTE
2026-0661.2 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Headcount

63 staff

63 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Doctor: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 064. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0663 staff
2025-0761 staff
2025-0863 staff
2025-0964 staff
2025-1061 staff
2025-1161 staff
2025-1261 staff
2026-0160 staff
2026-0264 staff
2026-0364 staff
2026-0463 staff
2026-0563 staff
2026-0663 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Full-time equivalent

67.3 FTE

67.3 FTE was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 069.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0661.8 FTE
2025-0759.9 FTE
2025-0866.8 FTE
2025-0965.8 FTE
2025-1066.1 FTE
2025-1165.6 FTE
2025-1268.5 FTE
2026-0166.4 FTE
2026-0263.3 FTE
2026-0366.7 FTE
2026-0468.3 FTE
2026-0569.1 FTE
2026-0667.3 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Headcount

72 staff

72 staff was reported for “HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: HCHS doctors - Specialty Registrar: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 074. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0665 staff
2025-0763 staff
2025-0871 staff
2025-0970 staff
2025-1070 staff
2025-1169 staff
2025-1272 staff
2026-0170 staff
2026-0267 staff
2026-0371 staff
2026-0473 staff
2026-0574 staff
2026-0672 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Midwives: Full-time equivalent

101 FTE

101 FTE was reported for “Midwives: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Midwives: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0106.8. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0697.3 FTE
2025-0795.2 FTE
2025-0893.2 FTE
2025-0995.6 FTE
2025-10104.2 FTE
2025-11104.8 FTE
2025-12103 FTE
2026-01105.4 FTE
2026-02106.8 FTE
2026-03103.7 FTE
2026-04101.4 FTE
2026-05100.7 FTE
2026-06101 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Midwives: Headcount

121 staff

121 staff was reported for “Midwives: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Midwives: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0126. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06113 staff
2025-07110 staff
2025-08109 staff
2025-09111 staff
2025-10122 staff
2025-11123 staff
2025-12121 staff
2026-01124 staff
2026-02126 staff
2026-03123 staff
2026-04122 staff
2026-05121 staff
2026-06121 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Nurses & health visitors: Full-time equivalent

945.1 FTE

945.1 FTE was reported for “Nurses & health visitors: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Nurses & health visitors: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0968.6. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06960.3 FTE
2025-07948.3 FTE
2025-08954.2 FTE
2025-09965.5 FTE
2025-10965.6 FTE
2025-11968.6 FTE
2025-12965.9 FTE
2026-01957.4 FTE
2026-02954.7 FTE
2026-03952.1 FTE
2026-04958.6 FTE
2026-05952.5 FTE
2026-06945.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Nurses & health visitors: Headcount

1,014 staff

1,014 staff was reported for “Nurses & health visitors: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Nurses & health visitors: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,042. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,033 staff
2025-071,021 staff
2025-081,026 staff
2025-091,038 staff
2025-101,039 staff
2025-111,042 staff
2025-121,039 staff
2026-011,031 staff
2026-021,026 staff
2026-031,022 staff
2026-041,028 staff
2026-051,023 staff
2026-061,014 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Full-time equivalent

300.4 FTE

300.4 FTE was reported for “Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0308.2. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06298.4 FTE
2025-07296 FTE
2025-08294.9 FTE
2025-09298.2 FTE
2025-10304.4 FTE
2025-11300.4 FTE
2025-12302.4 FTE
2026-01307.2 FTE
2026-02308.2 FTE
2026-03307.5 FTE
2026-04303.2 FTE
2026-05300.8 FTE
2026-06300.4 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Headcount

342 staff

342 staff was reported for “Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Scientific, therapeutic & technical staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0350. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06340 staff
2025-07338 staff
2025-08336 staff
2025-09340 staff
2025-10347 staff
2025-11343 staff
2025-12345 staff
2026-01349 staff
2026-02350 staff
2026-03350 staff
2026-04345 staff
2026-05341 staff
2026-06342 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

1,026.1 FTE

1,026.1 FTE was reported for “Support to clinical staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to clinical staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,106.1. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,106.1 FTE
2025-071,094 FTE
2025-081,084.2 FTE
2025-091,087.1 FTE
2025-101,082.8 FTE
2025-111,078.8 FTE
2025-121,073.8 FTE
2026-011,080.7 FTE
2026-021,080.1 FTE
2026-031,076.3 FTE
2026-041,022.6 FTE
2026-051,022.4 FTE
2026-061,026.1 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to clinical staff: Headcount

1,222 staff

1,222 staff was reported for “Support to clinical staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to clinical staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,330. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,330 staff
2025-071,313 staff
2025-081,300 staff
2025-091,304 staff
2025-101,303 staff
2025-111,296 staff
2025-121,291 staff
2026-011,298 staff
2026-021,296 staff
2026-031,292 staff
2026-041,223 staff
2026-051,220 staff
2026-061,222 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Full-time equivalent

884.6 FTE

884.6 FTE was reported for “Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0933.7. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06933.7 FTE
2025-07923.7 FTE
2025-08916.5 FTE
2025-09919.4 FTE
2025-10915.5 FTE
2025-11915.5 FTE
2025-12912 FTE
2026-01917.1 FTE
2026-02916.1 FTE
2026-03910.7 FTE
2026-04861.9 FTE
2026-05878.9 FTE
2026-06884.6 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Headcount

1,052 staff

1,052 staff was reported for “Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to doctors, nurses & midwives: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 01,121. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-061,121 staff
2025-071,107 staff
2025-081,098 staff
2025-091,102 staff
2025-101,101 staff
2025-111,098 staff
2025-121,094 staff
2026-011,099 staff
2026-021,096 staff
2026-031,090 staff
2026-041,029 staff
2026-051,047 staff
2026-061,052 staff

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to ST&T staff: Full-time equivalent

141.6 FTE

141.6 FTE was reported for “Support to ST&T staff: Full-time equivalent”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to ST&T staff: Full-time equivalent

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0172.4. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06172.4 FTE
2025-07170.4 FTE
2025-08167.6 FTE
2025-09167.7 FTE
2025-10167.3 FTE
2025-11163.2 FTE
2025-12161.9 FTE
2026-01163.6 FTE
2026-02164 FTE
2026-03165.6 FTE
2026-04160.7 FTE
2026-05143.4 FTE
2026-06141.6 FTE

June 2026 reporting organisation

Support to ST&T staff: Headcount

170 staff

170 staff was reported for “Support to ST&T staff: Headcount”. NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records.

Definition and source

Published measure: Support to ST&T staff: Headcount

NHS Hospital and Community Health Services workforce from payroll records. Excludes primary care and providers outside the collection. Headcount and full-time equivalent are distinct measures. Subgroups overlap with published totals and must not be added together. Organisation-wide staffing is not site staffing, an appointment count or a staffing-to-patient ratio. Changes can reflect transfers and coding. Source organisation: Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX). Publisher quality notes (each retains its affected period): DQ538 (2026-04-01 00:00:00): Increase of 350 corporate staff at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RM1) following the transfer of these staff to the trust from Queen Elizabeth Hospital King's Lynn NHS Foundation Trust (RCX) (170 staff) and James Paget University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (RGP) (190 staff). This is due to the creation of a group model across the three NHS acute trusts in Norfolk.

Hospital and Community Health Services workforce · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-062026-06 · vertical scale 0209. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-06209 staff
2025-07206 staff
2025-08202 staff
2025-09202 staff
2025-10202 staff
2025-11198 staff
2025-12197 staff
2026-01199 staff
2026-02200 staff
2026-03202 staff
2026-04194 staff
2026-05173 staff
2026-06170 staff

For your decision These numbers do not show the staffing of a particular ward or appointment.

Infection surveillance: historical context

Historical reported infections, with surveillance definitions and reporting coverage.

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Community-onset, community-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 84 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-093 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-032 reported cases
2026-043 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

4 reported cases

4 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 04. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-084 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-012 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-032 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-061 reported cases
2026-074 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Community-onset, indeterminate-association

1 reported cases

1 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Community-onset, indeterminate-association”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Community-onset, indeterminate-association

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset indeterminate association (COIA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust between 29 and 84 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-123 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-071 reported cases
Explore 34 additional measures

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

1 reported cases

1 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is 3 days or more after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 06. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-093 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-114 reported cases
2025-124 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-034 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-052 reported cases
2026-066 reported cases
2026-071 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Total cases

8 reported cases

8 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 09. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-074 reported cases
2025-088 reported cases
2025-099 reported cases
2025-106 reported cases
2025-118 reported cases
2025-129 reported cases
2026-014 reported cases
2026-024 reported cases
2026-038 reported cases
2026-048 reported cases
2026-054 reported cases
2026-069 reported cases
2026-078 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

C. difficile: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “C. difficile: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: C. difficile: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: The reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the 3 months prior to CDI case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Community-onset, community-associated

17 reported cases

17 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 022. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0719 reported cases
2025-0815 reported cases
2025-0910 reported cases
2025-1010 reported cases
2025-1111 reported cases
2025-1215 reported cases
2026-0117 reported cases
2026-0213 reported cases
2026-0317 reported cases
2026-0422 reported cases
2026-0514 reported cases
2026-0619 reported cases
2026-0717 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-074 reported cases
2025-084 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-117 reported cases
2025-123 reported cases
2026-015 reported cases
2026-023 reported cases
2026-036 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-054 reported cases
2026-065 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 06. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-074 reported cases
2025-086 reported cases
2025-091 reported cases
2025-104 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-123 reported cases
2026-012 reported cases
2026-022 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-054 reported cases
2026-063 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Total cases

21 reported cases

21 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 027. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0727 reported cases
2025-0825 reported cases
2025-0912 reported cases
2025-1015 reported cases
2025-1119 reported cases
2025-1221 reported cases
2026-0124 reported cases
2026-0218 reported cases
2026-0324 reported cases
2026-0426 reported cases
2026-0522 reported cases
2026-0627 reported cases
2026-0721 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

E. coli: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “E. coli: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: E. coli: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the E. coli case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, community-associated

7 reported cases

7 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-076 reported cases
2025-085 reported cases
2025-094 reported cases
2025-105 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-127 reported cases
2026-015 reported cases
2026-026 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-047 reported cases
2026-053 reported cases
2026-065 reported cases
2026-077 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-102 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-033 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-061 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

1 reported cases

1 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 04. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-074 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-102 reported cases
2025-111 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-022 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-052 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-071 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Total cases

10 reported cases

10 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 011. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-0711 reported cases
2025-089 reported cases
2025-096 reported cases
2025-109 reported cases
2025-114 reported cases
2025-127 reported cases
2026-015 reported cases
2026-029 reported cases
2026-035 reported cases
2026-0410 reported cases
2026-056 reported cases
2026-066 reported cases
2026-0710 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Klebsiella spp: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Klebsiella spp: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Klebsiella spp: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the Klebsiella spp. case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Community-onset, community-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Total cases

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-101 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MRSA: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MRSA: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MRSA: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'Don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the MRSA case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Community-onset, community-associated

3 reported cases

3 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date) Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 07. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-082 reported cases
2025-093 reported cases
2025-102 reported cases
2025-113 reported cases
2025-122 reported cases
2026-016 reported cases
2026-023 reported cases
2026-034 reported cases
2026-047 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-073 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 04. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-034 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-011 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-032 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Total cases

3 reported cases

3 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 010. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-073 reported cases
2025-083 reported cases
2025-095 reported cases
2025-102 reported cases
2025-113 reported cases
2025-123 reported cases
2026-017 reported cases
2026-025 reported cases
2026-0310 reported cases
2026-049 reported cases
2026-052 reported cases
2026-064 reported cases
2026-073 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

MSSA: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “MSSA: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: MSSA: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the MSSA case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, community-associated

1 reported cases

1 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, community-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, community-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset community-associated (COCA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient has not been discharged from the same reporting organisation in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-081 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-122 reported cases
2026-012 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-061 reported cases
2026-071 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Community-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Community-onset healthcare-associated (COHA): is not categorised HOHA and the patient was most recently discharged from the same reporting trust in the 28 days prior to the specimen date (where day one is the specimen date). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 03. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-071 reported cases
2025-083 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

2 reported cases

2 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Hospital-onset, healthcare-associated

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Hospital-onset healthcare-associated (HOHA): specimen date is the same or more than 3 days after the current admission date (where day of admission is day one). Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 02. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-112 reported cases
2025-121 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-041 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-061 reported cases
2026-072 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: No information

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: No information”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: No information

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. No information: the reporting trust did not provide any answer for questions on prior admission. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Total cases

3 reported cases

3 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Total cases”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Total cases

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 04. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-072 reported cases
2025-084 reported cases
2025-092 reported cases
2025-103 reported cases
2025-114 reported cases
2025-124 reported cases
2026-012 reported cases
2026-021 reported cases
2026-031 reported cases
2026-042 reported cases
2026-051 reported cases
2026-062 reported cases
2026-073 reported cases

July 2026 NHS acute trust

Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Unknown

0 reported cases

0 reported cases was reported for “Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Unknown”. Historical laboratory-reported infection count.

Definition and source

Published measure: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Unknown

Historical laboratory-reported infection count. The reporting trust processes the specimen and may not be where infection was acquired. UKHSA explicitly says these unadjusted counts are not a basis for comparisons between trusts or conclusions about infection-control effectiveness. Differences in population, case mix and hospital activity are not adjusted. Total and onset categories overlap; do not add them together. Extracted 17 August 2026; figures may be revised. Source reporting unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST. Unknown: the reporting trust answered 'don't know' to the question regarding previous discharge in the month prior to the P. aeruginosa case. Latest month signed off by trust: Yes.

Laboratory-reported healthcare-associated infections · Coverage and method

See how this has changed

2025-072026-07 · vertical scale 01. Gaps remain gaps.

Read the values by period
PeriodPublished value
2025-070 reported cases
2025-080 reported cases
2025-090 reported cases
2025-100 reported cases
2025-110 reported cases
2025-120 reported cases
2026-010 reported cases
2026-020 reported cases
2026-030 reported cases
2026-040 reported cases
2026-050 reported cases
2026-060 reported cases
2026-070 reported cases

For your decision Raw counts cannot rank hospitals with different sizes and patient groups.

National infection context and why counts cannot rank hospitals

Organisation environment: PLACE assessments

Environment assessments reported across an organisation, potentially covering several sites.

2025 reporting organisation

Cleanliness assessment

99.3%

99.3% was reported for “Cleanliness assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Cleanliness assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Condition Appearance and Maintenance assessment

98.9%

98.9% was reported for “Condition Appearance and Maintenance assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Condition Appearance and Maintenance assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Dementia assessment

90.2%

90.2% was reported for “Dementia assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Dementia assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

Explore 5 additional measures

2025 reporting organisation

Disability assessment

92.8%

92.8% was reported for “Disability assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Disability assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Food assessment

89.6%

89.6% was reported for “Food assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Food assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Organisation Food assessment

82.6%

82.6% was reported for “Organisation Food assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Organisation Food assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Privacy, Dignity and Wellbeing assessment

94.2%

94.2% was reported for “Privacy, Dignity and Wellbeing assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Privacy, Dignity and Wellbeing assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

2025 reporting organisation

Ward Food assessment

91.4%

91.4% was reported for “Ward Food assessment”. 2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit.

Definition and source

Published measure: Ward Food assessment

2025 patient-led assessment of the non-clinical environment; not a clinical outcome or a current accessibility audit. Assessments involve staff and patient assessors and include judgement. Participation is voluntary and coverage differs. Check present-day facilities directly before travelling. Organisation results are weighted by the beds in participating sites; they are not individual site scores.

PLACE: organisation environment assessments · Coverage and method

For your decision Confirm the arrangements at the exact building you will attend.

Hospital mortality indicators and their limitations

A statistical mortality indicator that needs the publisher’s interpretation and context.

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Statistical expected deaths in SHMI cohort

1,415 expected deaths

1,415 expected deaths was reported for “Statistical expected deaths in SHMI cohort”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Statistical expected deaths in SHMI cohort

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RCX).

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Observed deaths in SHMI cohort

1,570 deaths

1,570 deaths was reported for “Observed deaths in SHMI cohort”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Observed deaths in SHMI cohort

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RCX).

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator

1.1 ratio

1.1 ratio was reported for “Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RCX).

Publisher over-dispersion control limits (not a confidence interval): 0.91.2 ratio.

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

Explore 1 additional measures

May 2025–April 2026 NHS trust

Hospital provider spells in SHMI cohort

36,865 spells

36,865 spells was reported for “Hospital provider spells in SHMI cohort”. Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation.

Definition and source

Published measure: Hospital provider spells in SHMI cohort

Deaths during admission or within 30 days of discharge, relative to a statistical expectation. SHMI is not a measure of quality of care, avoidable deaths or excess deaths. Do not rank trusts using SHMI. Case mix, diagnosis coding and same-day emergency-care recording affect interpretation. Published death and spell counts are rounded. Expected deaths are a statistical construct, not a target. Publisher band: Within the expected range. Source unit: THE QUEEN ELIZABETH HOSPITAL, KING'S LYNN, NHS FOUNDATION TRUST (RCX).

Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator · Coverage and method

For your decision Do not use this measure alone to judge safety or predict an individual outcome.

About this organisation

Recorded care types
NHS trusts, Provider groups
Local authority area
King's Lynn and West Norfolk
Funding information
NHS organisation — confirm the service’s funding
NHS organisation code
RCX
CQC identifier
RCX

CQC inspection evidence

Keep the publication date and assessed service in view. Ratings are reproduced as categories; they are not averaged into a score.

AssessmentRatingPublished
CaringGood23 February 2022
Combined Quality RatingInadequate13 September 2018
EffectiveGood23 February 2022
OverallRequires improvement23 February 2022
ResponsiveRequires improvement23 February 2022
SafeRequires improvement23 February 2022
Use of ResourcesRequires improvement13 September 2018
Well-ledGood23 February 2022

Service evidence

Connected organisations and services

Sources and coverage

Source changes may take time to appear here. Suggest a correction · Represent this provider