Hamptons Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The culture was positive and staff we spoke with were passionate about making changes that were required.

Staff understood the vision and values and this was evident in the care they provided and information provided to us.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported, and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care and worked well together to ensure they achieved good outcomes for patients. Staff were positive and proud to work for the service.

Staff reported that there were insufficient team meetings and often communication would be verbal or via email. The last departmental meeting that was held was in April 2025. Staff mentioned that this may be due to current low staffing levels.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Although leaders understood the context in which the service delivered care, treatment and support, consistent ongoing pressures did not aways enable leaders to take a proactive approach to issues and risks.

The radiology manager led the diagnostic imaging service and demonstrated extensive experience and a clear understanding of the service and how it operated. However there was limited proactive oversight within the service that was impacting on patient experience. We observed poor infection prevention control and limited oversight of policies and staffing which all impacted on patient safety and experience within the service, and because leaders did not act quickly and decisively on these concerns, avoidable risks remained ongoing.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from local managers and told us that development opportunities were available to them.

The radiation protection supervisor (RPS) had a good understanding of the diagnostic imaging service and was able to explain how they worked with senior leaders to provide high quality care.

We were told some senior leadership team were not very visible within the department.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The hospital had a freedom to speak up (FTSU) policy in place which clearly set out the roles and responsibilities of all staff and provided guidance on how to raise concerns. Staff could raise concerns either internally or externally. The FTSU policy was supported by the Freedom, to Speak Up Standard Operating Procedure, which clearly and comprehensively described the process to follow when staff raised a concern.

Staff were aware of the Freedom to Speak Up guardian but told us they did not feel they would need to contact them, as they felt comfortable raising concerns with their direct line manager. Therefore staff did not use the service.

Patients and carers had opportunities to provide feedback about the service they received in ways that reflected their individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

The service promoted workforce equality, diversity and inclusion through established policies and by ensuring staff completed the mandatory training.

Staff we spoke with did not raise any concerns about the inclusivity of the working culture and told us they were treated with respect and fairness. Staff said they felt confident that managers would listen to any concerns they raised. We did not identify any concerns relating to unfair treatment, discrimination or harassment within the diagnostic imaging department based on discussions with staff.

Staff felt there was the option to work flexibly if needed. The service had a freedom to speak up champion who was visible to all staff. There were no Black, Asian and Minority ethnic (BAME) champions. There were also no Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer plus (LGBTQ+) champions

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service had a morning huddle everyday with all departments from the hospital and the agenda was the same everyday. For example how many patients were due to attend across each service, complaints and updates. However, meetings were adhoc in diagnostic imaging and the agenda was based on what was needed to be communicated or discussed at the time.

The diagnostic imaging service had governance arrangements in place; however, most policies required updating. Leaders told us they planned to review and update these policies by 31st January 2026. Following the inspection the provider submitted updated policies.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology they needed to carry out their roles effectively.

Training compliance across staff groups within the diagnostic imaging department was good. This demonstrated that the service had effective systems in place to identify training needs and ensure staff had the appropriate skills and knowledge to meet patients’ needs. Information was on an accessible format.

The service participated in audits relating to quality of imaging and hygiene.

There was a risk register in place for diagnostic imaging.

The department’s business continuity plan focused on increasing patient activity to improve financial performance.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for patients. Staff shared information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

The service engaged with local partners and stakeholders.

The department had established a positive working relationship with the radiology agency, which provided a reliable imaging reporting service. Leaders told us the diagnostic imaging department aimed to reduce image report turnaround times to 24 hours. However, we did not see evidence of benchmarking against other providers or collaborative working with other departments or hospitals to support service improvement.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

We reviewed a business continuity plan provided by the department, which focused on increasing patient activity to improve financial performance. Following the inspection the service provided audit data and this included an audit programme for 2026/2027.