The Hamptons

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We found there was good therapeutic activities taking place and a strong occupational therapy team who provided support to the patients in a variety of ways.

Patients were involved in the daily running of the ward with community meetings taking place.

There was provision for those patients who had communication difficulties or poor language skills as well support for those from different cultural backgrounds with different diets and religious leaders available.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. Patients reported that most staff were kind and caring towards them. We observed some positive interactions between staff and patients where staff were respectful and attentive in their interactions with the patients.

Staff that we spoke to generally understood the needs of each patient, including their personal, cultural, social and religious needs.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition.

Staff directed patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services. Staff gave examples of where patients had been supported to access these services.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences. Staff were aware of how to raise concerns if they felt that they needed to. Managers noted that they tried to encourage an open-door culture so that staff could speak with them when needed.

The service was able to support and make adjustments for disabled patients as appropriate. The service had ground floor rooms available if patients had mobility issues, along with a lift which could access the first floor.

A patient had recently been diagnosed with a learning disability. Staff and managers gave examples of how adjustments were being made to offer additional support to this patient, including making adaptations to the patient’s care plans and discharge plans to make them easier to read and understand.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. Staff explained how information could be provided in a form accessible for specific patient needs or languages.

Managers noted that staff and patients could access interpreters as required.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups and to account for allergies and intolerances. Staff gave examples of how patients had been supported in relation to their diet, such as a patient who was supported to purchase additional ready meals to prepare after sundown during Ramadan, ensuring that their religious practices were fully accommodated.

Staff ensured that patients had access to appropriate spiritual support. Staff had established links with local religious organisations and gave examples of how patient specific needs had been accommodated within the service.

The service held regular community meetings which were chaired by the occupational therapy team. The minutes of these were recorded and available for patients. These meetings gave patients an opportunity to give feedback on the service.

The service used activity surveys to understand the patient groups’ opinions and feelings about the activities on offer within the service, including what the service could do better. The most recent survey was completed in January 2025 with 9 of the 13 patients participating. This identified two actions to be completed by the next survey due in June 2025, including responding to the various requests by the patients within the survey, along with increasing the number of activities on offer to patients after 5pm.

The service had also completed a therapies survey in January 2025, which gave mostly positive feedback about the therapies on offer to patients within the service. An action plan was created based on the feedback within this survey.

The service had undertaken a service user survey in December 2024 although only 5 of the 13 patients in the service at that time agreed to participate. The service had created an action plan in response to these findings, with most actions being completed at the time of the assessment.

Patients’ rights were given under the Mental Health Act, and this was monitored and documented for each patient. Patients had access to regular advocacy support and knew how to access advocacy services. Patients were invited to be involved in their ward meetings and were given opportunities to provide feedback and raise questions about their care and treatment.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues such as falls, and care planned for these accordingly. Staff used de-escalation techniques to reduce the need for physical interventions when patients’ behaviours became heightened. The service held daily handovers to share any changes or developments. Risk assessments were updated if any new risk was identified.

Staff that we spoke to felt respected, supported and valued within their roles. Staff gave positive feedback about their roles and were proud to work for the organisation.

Managers described how they were supported within their roles and how staff could access support for any physical or emotional health needs they may have.

The service had low levels of sickness. The average sickness rate between October 2024 and February 2025 was 3%. The average staff sickness level for the 12 months prior to the assessment was 4.5%.

Managers noted that, due to the acuity of the unit since December 2024, it had been a challenging period for staff and the overall morale. Managers were keen to ensure that staff felt supported, and that staff could raise any concerns or issues.

The service had an award scheme called “step up and stand out” where other staff or patients could nominate a staff member who they felt had gone above and beyond their role or who had made a significant contribution to the people they supported. The nominating party would be asked to describe this contribution in relation to one of the organisation’s values. The unit had a display in the downstairs corridor for winners of the awards.