THE Royal Surrey County Hospital is one of only 14 acute hospitals out of 156 in the country to receive no stars in this weekÕs health league tables.

But despite losing the two-star ranking it has received for two years running, the trust denied it would be seen as a failing hospital.

ÒThis is not a failing trust. On the vital measures we are excellent. We believe this is a five-star trust for clinical care and our patients get better quicker and rarely have to come back in for treatment once they leave.Ó

The Guildford and Waverley Primary Care Trust, which is responsible for improving the health of, and providing some of the health services for, the local population, such as Haslemere Community Hospital, also received no stars in its first performance rating since it was formed in April last year.

The two local NHS trusts received the lowest rank in the yearly awards given by the independent NHS inspection body, The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI). The maximum mark is three stars.

The CHI, which took over the star-rating inspections from the Department of Health this year, gave the hospital two stars both last year and in 2001 when the health league tables were first published.

The Guildford and Waverley Primary Care Trust (PCT), was one of 304 PCTs assessed for the first time - and it was one of 22 that received no stars at all.

The PCT, a body of managers and doctors which organises local NHS care for patients, and the Royal Surrey have both received poor marks partly because of long waits at the Royal SurreyÕs accident and emergency department.

The PCT admits that problems arranging post-hospital care for elderly patients, or Òbed blockersÓ, has the knock-on effect of A&E patients enduring long waits for beds.

The hospital failed to reduce all waits for minor cases to four hours and had too many patients waiting more than 12 hours.

However, it says there has been a Òmajor improvementÓ in the figures since March, when the hospital was assessed.

The PCT, in partnership with the Royal Surrey and social services, has drawn up a plan to address the problem and is expecting to receive a report from the NHS Modernisation Agency, which is also addressing the matter, next week.

A key improvement will be 30 more beds due in the autumn.

A walk-in centre for patients with minor injuries and other improvements is also planned.

Royal Surrey chief executive Matthew Swindells said: ÒPart of the problem is the way waiting in A&E is calculated has changed.

ÒOur local residents know that we have always had problems with long waits, although we are dramatically improving here, but the star-rating system has caught up with this issue.

ÒThe way they calculate the scores hits us hard, so effectively we have improved things for patients but lost marks.

ÒWe do still have more patients waiting to be admitted through A&E than most other hospitals and it is unacceptable for patients to have long waits on trolleys.

ÒI am personally committed to solving that problem.Ó

The hospital was also penalised this year for overspending by £3.5 million, but Mr Swindells blamed this on a debt inherited from the former West Surrey Health Authority.

Defending her organisation, chief executive of the Guildford and Waverley PCT Liz Slinn said: ÒItÕs about targets for access to care rather than the quality of care.

ÒWe provide a very high standard of patient care to our population, and we have very dedicated and highly-qualified professional staff working for us.Ó

The PCT has failed to meet two of its A&E waiting-time targets.

It also fell short of the target of 90 per cent of patients being seen by a GP within two working days at the time of assessment, but now exceeds that target with a 96 per cent figure.

It also recorded a financial deficit of £750,000, largely the legacy of deficits accrued by the former West Surrey Health Authority.

Meanwhile, Frimley Park Hospital at Camberley received two stars, down from three on the last two years.

And it has lost out on the chance to apply for foundation-hospital status because of a deficit of just under £2 million, which is the result of a funding shortfall.

But there was good news from the Surrey Ambulance Service.

It received the maximum three stars, although Hampshire Ambulance Service received no stars at all after failing to meet response-time targets.

Hampshire ambulances failed to answer 75 per cent of life-threatening calls within eight minutes, the majority of other urgent ambulance calls within 19 minutes, and urgent GP calls within 15 minutes.

A statement from Hampshire Ambulance expressed disappointment at the ratings but said change was on the horizon.

It said that the service was Òmaking significant strides towards improving overall quality and performanceÓ.