Hamptons Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. This was the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We found the service treated people with kindness. This was reflected in the patient survey feedback for the period April 2025 to September 2025 for outpatients. Courtesy of staff typically scored well with 90% of patients (based on 1273 responses) saying staff introduced themselves and treated them with respect. In the patient survey, 96% of patients said that staff did not speak to them as if they were not present. 96% of patients said they were always given privacy when discussing treatment or being examined. Patients we spoke with were positive about their experience in the outpatient’s department.

The environment supported privacy. Rooms were designed to enable private discussions, were clearly marked when in use to prevent intrusion, and patients were offered the option of a chaperone. The service also had a chaperone policy to support practice, but this was beyond its review date of 31 September 2025 at the time of the inspection. This has been updated following the inspection.

The service had an overarching dignity and respect policy to support staff to treat people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

Staff told us they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes towards patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff were observed to maintain the confidentiality of information about patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We observed that staff treated patients as individuals and adapted their approach to meet each person’s needs.

The service had a range of provisions in place to support accessibility and inclusion. We were informed that alerts could be placed on the electronic patient management system at the time of booking to identify any additional needs, language requirements or relevant conditions. In addition, we were informed that the patient management system could capture peoples preferred name, pronouns and communication needs. We did not observe any information leaflets in alternative formats, such as different languages, Braille, or large print during our inspection. However, we were informed that the service had plans to address this in the future.

We were informed by leaders that the hospital hosts events such as a “culture day” with food to celebrate the heritage of staff and for staff to respect each other.

Staff had training in equality, diversity, and human rights, as well as dementia and autism awareness, which formed part of the mandatory training programme. This supported staff to provide care that was person-centred, inclusive, and responsive to individual needs.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

In the patient survey, 80% of patients reported that they were involved in decision making and 94% of patients received instructions on who to contact after leaving hospital. Overall, 98% said they would use the hospital again.

Staff told us that patients could be accompanied to their appointment with a family member or a carer. If the patient arrived on their own, then patients could request a chaperone to support them within their appointment. Chaperones were available for all patients and were also used to support the safety of both patients and staff members.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress. We spoke with a patient who was impressed with communication about particular potential side-effects of treatment they had received.

The environment also supported comfort and convenience, with hot drink machines and water coolers available in the reception area for patients and relatives but if patients were waiting for a longer period, hot food was not available.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us the outpatient manager was very supportive and approachable if needed. Staff also told us there was a positive culture within the department and there was good morale. A staff survey was carried out by us and 11 outpatient staff participated, 73% of staff felt they either strongly or somewhat agreed that they were treated fairly, regardless of ethnic background, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability or race and that equality, diversity and inclusion were promoted. In addition, 64% of outpatient staff in the survey felt that staff and teams work collaboratively together.

We were informed by leaders that staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

A request was made for the overall percentage of staff sickness and absence for outpatient staff but this was not submitted in a format to be able to comment on. This means we were not able to assess how well staff sickness and absence was being managed.