Hamptons Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence that safety was a priority for everyone, and leaders embedded a culture of openness and collaboration. We checked that people were safe and protected from bullying, harassment, avoidable harm, neglect, abuse, and discrimination.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

We have not awarded this service a score for Safe.

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

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. They did not always listen to concerns about safety and did not always investigate and report safety events. Lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated an understanding of the service’s incident reporting policy, and felt confident in identifying and reporting incidents, including those relating to radiation exposure, in line with established processes and escalation to the Radiation Protection supervisor (RPS)

Between December 2024 and November 2025, over 1,200 diagnostic scans were undertaken, during which 124 incidents were reported. Most incidents were categorised as no harm, with 2 classified as low harm. Appropriate actions were taken in response to the incidents reported. There were no serious incidents in the last 12 months.

The diagnostic imaging service had processes to investigate incidents and identify learning; however, evidence that learning had been consistently embedded into practice was limited. Incident data identified 2 occasions in May and June 2025 where patients were booked for Computed Tomography (CT) scans earlier than specified in their referrals. In both cases, the errors were identified prior to scanning and no harm occurred. Learning was documented, highlighting the need for greater attention to booking comments and adherence to referring clinician instructions.

Despite this, during our site visit, 2 near miss incidents of a similar nature were identified by the inspection team, where discrepancies in booking information were detected before the scan took place and the scans were not completed. Information provided indicated that learning from the earlier incidents had been shared with the relevant teams; however, more effective approaches to embedding learning and preventing recurrence was still being explored. Overall, the evidence indicated that learning from incidents was not consistently implemented in practice.

Staff understood duty of candour.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

As part of our inspection, we reviewed a sample of imaging referral forms, which staff had mainly completed with relevant information. The forms were legible and signed. Staff confirmed that they considered patients’ needs through a pre-assessment phone call prior to their appointment. This included information about any required reasonable adjustments. They also informed patients of the next steps and provided contact details to ensure continuity of care after the imaging procedure.

Referrers submitted referrals on paper; however, staff accessed diagnostic imaging details and radiological reports through an encrypted electronic system. The service outsourced diagnostic image reporting to a third-party provider. Radiologists completed reports within a few days of the scan, and the business continuity plan stated the provider was aiming to achieve a 24-hour turnaround time for reports.

The Hamptons Hospital and the third-party reporting provider used integrated electronic systems to support efficient and seamless reporting. Once a radiologist completed a study and updated the reporting status to ‘completed’, the system automatically updated the order status within patient record. The system then generated an automated email notification to the requesting clinician and flagged the update as a notification within the electronic patient record. Where radiologists identified urgent findings, they flagged the study as urgent within the reporting system to ensure timely escalation.

Under the non-medical referrer policy for self-paying patients, The service generated Imaging reports within 24 hours of the examination. An encrypted copy of the diagnostic report was then sent to the referring clinician.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrate on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

During our assessment, all staff we spoke with demonstrated a clear understanding of who the safeguarding lead was and how to escalate safeguarding concerns appropriately. Staff described a safeguarding concern they had managed, including the actions taken, the outcome, and how they worked with other agencies to ensure the individual’s safety.

The service provided safeguarding training that was specific to staff roles. All staff had completed safeguarding training to level 2 for both adults and children, which supported their ability to recognise and report safeguarding incidents. There was a safeguarding lead in place and staff were able to provide recent examples of how they protected individuals from harm. One example included a patient with protected characteristics who falls under the equality act.

Staff used chaperones when required. The diagnostic imaging team consisted of 2 male radiographers. Staff informed us that they made patients aware in advance that the radiographers were male and that patients could request a female chaperone if required. Staff told us they had not had any complaints in relation to this.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff communicated effectively with patients to ensure they understood their care and treatment. We observed staff explaining a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedure and checking patients’ understanding. Patients we observed told us they were satisfied with the care they received.

Senior staff attended a daily hospital huddle to review patient lists and discuss patient issues, complaints, capacity staffing and any other pressures affecting the service. Senior staff shared a summary of the huddle with all senior team members by email. Staff told us that senior management also informed them verbally of any issues. Staff explained they could escalate concerns to their manager, who could raise these at the daily huddle.

The service had a comprehensive and up-to-date identification of patients policy in place for carrying out a radiological examination. The policy aligned with guidance from the Royal College of Radiologists.

The service had a clear process in place for managing medical emergencies within the MRI scanner. Staff demonstrated awareness of this process and how to respond in the event of an emergency.

The service used a translation service for patients who did not speak English. The service did collect feedback from patients via a survey.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The design of the environment followed national guidance, most areas of diagnostic imaging were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. However, the MRI controlled area was visibly dirty.

An external company serviced and maintained the hospital’s diagnostic imaging equipment. Service records confirmed that all imaging equipment received a regular planned servicing.

Staff completed daily and weekly checks of the resuscitation trolley located between the diagnostic imaging department and theatres.

The service had digital locks with swipe access installed at the entrance to the diagnostic imaging department and throughout the department. The digital lock for the portable MRI scanner located in the hospital car park was also not working. The service has taken measures at the time of our inspection to ensure that this will be rectified.

We reviewed a sample of consumables and fire extinguishers and found that all items were within their expiry dates.

The provider supplied evidence to demonstrate that they routinely monitored staff exposure to occupational radiation, including the monitoring of lead aprons.

We observed that several policies were out of date. The provider informed us that they planned to review and update all policies by 31st January 2026. We

We reviewed a sample of consumables and fire extinguishers and found that all items were within their expiry dates.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. They did not always make sure staff received effective support, supervision and development. They did not always work together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

At the time of our inspection, only 2 staff members worked across all imaging modalities, including CT, MRI, X-ray and Dexa. These roles comprise a senior radiographer and the Radiation Protection Supervisor (RPS). Staff told us that the service considered this staffing level manageable because patient activity levels were low and that they relied on bank and agency staff during periods of increased demand. Staff confirmed that the service last used bank or agency staff in April 2025 when the NHS contract ended. `

Despite concerns with low staffing levels, the service reported good overall compliance with mandatory training. Staff had completed all required mandatory training spoke positively about their induction process. Staff told us that the service allowed them sufficient time to gain competency and that managers supported them to complete mandatory training on an annual basis.

During our inspection we requested evidence of the senior radiographer’s MRI competencies. Staff informed us that these competencies had never been fully signed off. We received evidence that the senior radiographer was signed off to undertake MRI scans of the Internal auditory meatus (IAMS) only and has done this for the previous 6 months. Staff told us that the MRI specialist radiographer who previously scanned anatomical sites resigned in October 2025, and the RPS had now assumed responsibility for scanning all sites. This meant that patients could only be booked onto the MRI scanner when the RPS was available and limits accessibility for patients.

Staff told us that managers, including the RPS were approachable and that they maintained positive working relationships. However, staff reported that they no longer had a colleague they felt able to confide in following the departure of a radiographer in October 2025.

Staff told us that, in the event of staff absence or sickness, the service rescheduled patient appointments.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Most areas of diagnostic imaging were visibly clean, well maintained and free from clutter. However, the MRI controlled area was noticeably unclean, and inspectors found a dirty needle in a storage cupboard. The needle was sheathed but was found without its sealed paper packaging and had visible dust on it. The implications of this is that it has the potential to pose serious infection prevention control measures and also if staff had adequate training to dispose of sharps. The evidence showed that mandatory training was complete. The needle was disposed of immediately.

The provider informed us they had initiated an investigation into the improper disposal of the needle and confirmed plans to complete an unannounced audit of the MRI area to ensure staff followed established protocols. The provider also confirmed it had introduced mandatory sharps safety refresher training and installed new signage to support the safe disposal of sharps.

On the day of our inspection, staff confirmed there was no clear oversight of who was responsible for cleaning the MRI scanner as it was portable and located in the car park. Following our inspection, the provider supplied evidence that clarified cleaning responsibilities and confirmed that the issue had been addressed.

The service did not consistently complete monthly hand hygiene audits, as evidence provided only consisted of 6 months.

We scored this service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They did not always involve people in planning.

The service restricted access to the CT room, which reduced the risk of unauthorised access to medicines. However, the service stored emergency medicines within the CT area in an unlocked cabinet. The emergency medicines bag was not tamper proof sealed, and staff did not monitor storage temperatures. Inspectors found no evidence that staff completed routine checks of the emergency medicines stored in this area. We highlighted this concern to staff at the hospital who took action to ensure all emergency bags were checked and had tamper-evident seals applied. The provider also recirculated the statement of purpose relating to the safe storage of medicines to all staff.

Pharmacy staff provided some support and oversight to the diagnostic imaging service. The service had a Patient Group Direction (PGD) in place for contrast agents, which included risk considerations for patients with diabetes who were prescribed metformin. Emergency medicines for the treatment of anaphylaxis and reversal agents were available in resuscitation trolleys, and staff understood where these medicines were stored. Staff followed local protocols for medicines used during imaging procedures, and pharmacy staff provided governance oversight for these processes.