Hamptons Hospital

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.

This is the first assessment for this diagnostic service. This key question has been rated Good.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service worked in partnership with people to improve the quality of care provided. People who used the service told us that staff considered their needs, and scan procedures were undertaken in accordance with their expectations and preferences.

Staff discussed people’s individual clinical and personal needs with them before commencing scans.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and carried out scan procedures appropriately.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service worked in partnership with people to improve the quality of care provided. People who used the service told us that staff considered their needs, and scan procedures were undertaken in accordance with their expectations and preferences.

Staff discussed people’s individual clinical and personal needs with them before commencing scans.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs and carried out scan procedures appropriately.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured patient information leaflets were available in the main waiting area; however, these leaflets were not specific to diagnostic imaging. The service did not provide the leaflets in languages other than English, and they did not offer large print versions.

The hospital intranet held resources such as hospital and department policies, and staff knew how to access these policies.

Staff provided people with relevant information about their scan procedures and discussed this with them to ensure they were well informed. Staff also answered any questions people asked.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Patients understood how to make a complaint or raise concerns, and staff knew how to manage complaints appropriately.

The evidence provided stated that, in February 2025, the service had a backlog of unresolved complaints, including one related to a radiologist misinterpreting a scan in the past. The service committed to reviewing and closing all open complaints and accident investigations by the next staff meeting; There was no further evidence to provide assurance of this.

The service made complaints leaflets available for patients to take and read, which provided guidance on how to raise a complaint. Patients knew how to raise concerns.

The service made complaints leaflets available for patients to take and read, which provided guidance on how to raise a complaint. Patients knew how to raise concerns and received feedback when they did so.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, including providing hoists or walking aids for patients with impaired mobility.

Patients reported experiencing little to no waiting time when booking appointments.

The service maintained adequate medical cover, with 2 resident medical officers in place.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, including providing hoists or walking aids for patients with impaired mobility.

Patients reported experiencing little to no waiting time when booking appointments.

The service maintained adequate medical cover, with 2 resident medical officers in place.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff explained scan procedure to people using the service before their appointments. People told us they felt satisfied with the information provided and understood what to expect.

The nature of the diagnostic scan procedures meant most people attended the service on a single occasion, unless their initial assessment required more than 1 scan.

Due to the nature of the services, there was no requirement to provide routine after care support or follow up appointments. However, staff provided people with information after their scans to support them with any questions about the procedure or the reporting of scan results. The service had processes in place to identify and escalate urgent findings appropriately.