The Hamptons

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant patient outcomes were consistently good, and patient feedback confirmed this.

Staff assessed the mental and physical health needs of patients on admission which meant staff had identified physical health needs and developed holistic care plans.

Patients had up to date care plans in place, which were individual to the patient.

Staff always supported patients to lead healthier lives. We saw outdoor activity encouraged. Staff offered activities and advice to support patients with healthy eating and to take more exercise.

However, staff supervision compliance rates were low in the months prior to the assessment.

There were some significant gaps identified in the patient weekly physical observation checks and it was not clear how managers were assured that these were being monitored. There were also inconsistencies in the recording and locations of certain documentation.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We reviewed 6 patient records during the assessment. The records were paper based and contained a significant amount of information. This made reviewing the records quite time-consuming and difficult at points.

Staff completed a comprehensive mental health assessment of the patient in a timely manner at, or soon after, admission. Communication needs were also assessed.

Staff assessed patients’ physical health needs during their admission in a timely manner. The multidisciplinary team (MDT) reviewed patients regularly after admission. The assessments of need started prior to admission and continued throughout the patients stay.

Staff developed care plans that mostly met the needs identified during assessment. Care plans were mostly personalised, holistic and recovery oriented.

Staff did not ensure that patients consistently had good access to physical healthcare. During our review of the service’s physical health folder, we identified gaps in weekly physical observations checks for patients. Each patient had an individual section in the folder and we reviewed all patients. There were multiple patients with gaps in their weekly physical observations, for example, we observed 5 patients who did not have recorded physical observations between the 26 January 2025 and 10 March 2025. It was a concern that these gaps had not been identified within the service and action taken to ensure appropriate physical observations were being completed.

The physical health folder also contained additional checks such as waterlow, the malnutrition universal screening tool and oral healthcare, however, the majority of these were blank. Some had one or two entries recorded. We had observed that the patient folders also contained these documents which tended to have more entries recorded. This was queried with a senior member of staff who clarified that these documents should be stored and recorded in the patient folders, although reflected that this practice may need to change and was going to discuss at the service governance meeting.

The team included or had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of patients in the service.

The service held monthly staff meetings. Managers noted that staff attendance at the meetings could vary and that they would like to ensure more staff could attend where possible. The service also held 6 monthly site meetings where the director and assistant director of the organisation would attend the site and hold a meeting with staff.

The percentage of staff that had had an appraisal in the last 12 months was 95% on the day of the assessment. However, the staff supervision completion rates were low for the three months prior to the assessment. For February 2025, January 2025 and December 2024 the percentage of staff that had received supervision was 58%, 55% and 37% respectively. Managers advised that the acuity of the service had impacted on supervision figures and the months prior to December 2024 were consistently above 85%.

Managers ensured that staff received the necessary specialist training for their roles.

Managers described how they monitored staff performance and the ways in which they dealt with poor performance promptly and effectively.

The service had a daily task board which monitored key areas for all of the current patients, including any outstanding or upcoming actions that staff may need to address or follow up. The service would hold a meeting each morning to review the board. We observed one of these meetings. Staff spoke respectfully about the patients and were knowledgeable about the patients and their backgrounds. Staff had a positive rapport amongst each other and were considerate of the needs of each patient.

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary meetings. We observed the ward rounds for 3 patients on the day of the assessment. Patients attended these meetings and were given opportunities by staff to contribute and have their voice heard. Staff discussed patient risks and risk assessments during the ward rounds.

We requested the service’s handover documentation for the two weeks prior to the assessment following the on-site inspection. Although the handovers were generally recorded and complete, we identified that there were some gaps in the submitted documentation, including no night shift handover recorded on the 21 February 2025 and no day shift handovers recorded on the 22 February 2025 and 02 March 2025. We also noted some gaps of essential information being recorded, such as staff on duty, allocated responsibilities for the shift and restraint trained staff, including the day shifts on 18 February 2025 and the 03 March 2025.

Managers reported positive relationships with teams outside the organisation, including a strong relationship with a local GP who supported the unit in respect of physical healthcare.

We received feedback from external partners and stakeholders which was positive about the service and in particular how staff interacted and supported the patients.

Managers noted that the service’s relationship with the police had become strained over December 2024 due to the number of incidents requiring police support. The service had previously had a police liaison officer, and managers were exploring if this could be re-instated to improve the relationship and share knowledge about the service with the police.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives and gave examples of how they helped to facilitate this. The occupational therapy team ran healthy cooking groups once a week that patients could attend, along with doing one-to-one cooking sessions with patients. Staff described how patients would be encouraged to consider making healthier choices in relation to the meals that they were preparing. The occupational therapy team also noted that they attempted to make healthier choices more fun for patients, such as a recent example where they challenged patients to see who could make the healthiest wrap.

Staff advised how patients were encouraged to consider choosing healthier lifestyle choices, such as promoting walking to the bus stops, shops or GP. Staff noted that they would attempt to guide patients to make these choices, rather than be prescriptive.

Managers described how the service attempted to support patients with smoking cessation, although noted that most patients were not interested in exploring this. The service had regular clinics with the GP and could provide physical healthcare advice in one-to-ones with patients. Managers did note that letters had been issued to some patients around helping them to stop smoking and the risks associated with smoking, in particular to some patients who continued to smoke whilst on the unit.

Staff used recognised tools to monitor patients and rating scales to assess and record severity and outcomes. These included the National Early Warning Scores, the recovery star and the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool. We did, however, note inconsistent recording and reviews of these within the patient records and it was not always clear that they were being utilised effectively by staff.

Staff gave examples of where patients were supported to make their own decisions.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions.

For patients who might have impaired mental capacity, staff assessed and recorded capacity to consent appropriately. They did this on a decision-specific basis regarding significant decisions. When patients lacked capacity, staff made decisions in their best interests, recognising the importance of the person’s wishes, feelings, culture, and history.

We saw evidence within patient records that staff had completed consent to sharing information forms with patients.