The Hamptons

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Patients were always at the centre of how their care was planned and delivered.

There were systems in place such as community meetings and surveys which provided patients with opportunities to raise any issues they encountered in a formal way. They told us they had no concerns raising issues.

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 that we spoke to felt included in their care and treatment. Patients knew how they could give feedback on the service.

Staff supported, informed and involved people using the service and their families or carers. Staff told us that patients were included in their care and treatment choices with carers being involved where appropriate.

We saw evidence in care records that decisions around care and treatment were made in collaboration with the patient and their carers where appropriate. We saw evidence of discharge planning and that patients were supported to move on with the next steps of their recovery journey.

In the care records reviewed, patients did not always wish to engage with and be involved with their care planning. There was evidence that staff tried to consider individual patient needs and preferences within care plans, even where patients had not wished to engage. It was not, however, always recorded whether patients had been offered a copy of their care plan or if they had declined a copy.

Patients had a choice of food to meet the dietary requirements of religious and ethnic groups. The hospital offered a good variety of food options.

Staff could make adjustments for patients with specific needs such as mobility or communication issues.

The service had strong input from the occupational therapy team who promoted opportunities for the patients to access education and work opportunities. The therapy staff were passionate about their work and could give examples of how they would encourage and support patients as necessary. Although not all patients wished to engage with activities or opportunities, staff described ways in which they would attempt to address this and engage with those patients.

Staff supported patients to maintain contact with their families and carers. Patients gave positive feedback about the service enabling them to have contact with their families and carers. Managers described expectations within the service about contact with families and carers and felt that staff managed this well. Managers gave examples of where this was adjusted based on individual need or circumstances.

Staff supported patients to access their chosen place of worship within the community. Staff gave examples of how individual patients had been supported to access places of worship within the local community based on the patient’s preferences.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed including safeguarding and to commissioners. CQC received appropriate notifications where necessary from the service. Staff ensured carers, families and commissioners were regularly updated about the patient’s progress.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information, for example on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. This information was available throughout the hospital on notice boards.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients and access to translation and interpretation was provided if patients’ needs identified this.

The service had received 11 formal complaints in the 12 months prior to the assessment. Two of these complaints were open. Of the 9 closed complaints, 5 were partially upheld, 3 were upheld and 1 was not upheld. Managers had not identified any specific themes or trends from these complaints.

Patients that we spoke to knew how to complain or raise concerns. Staff were aware of how to manage complaints and described how patients would be supported if they did want to make a complaint.

We saw examples that, where complaints had been made and investigated, that managers provided the complainant with a letter providing feedback on the outcomes of any investigations.

The service was able to meet the needs of patients with mobility issues. Three of the 14 bedrooms were based on the ground floor and there was also a lift to access the first floor if required.

At the time of the assessment, no patients had specific needs for reasonable adjustments to be made by the service. Managers stated that, if any reasonable adjustments were required or identified, they would seek appropriate support or guidance on this.

There was adequate medical cover day and night, a doctor could attend the ward quickly in an emergency and the hospital was within a reasonable travelling distance to the local acute hospital.

Staff generally planned for patients’ discharge, and we saw discussions in patient records around discharge. The service monitored the status of patients who were pending discharge.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the patients using the service felt empowered to give their views. We saw evidence that patient feedback was gathered in various ways and that the provider was keen to make changes or adaptations based on this.

Staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion as part of the mandatory training.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Staff created personalised care plans to account for the patient’s needs, wishes and feelings.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of patients with complex needs.