Hamptons Hospital

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

This was the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs with them.

A weekly scheduling meeting was carried out to plan for the forthcoming clinics and there was communication with the booking department where extra clinics were planned if needed. Staff reviewed the list of patients due to attend the clinics and identified any additional needs, ensuring reasonable adjustments were planned for. For example, arranging interpretation services where required. When access or communication needs had not been identified in advance, staff made efforts to respond on the day, such as arranging interpretation at short notice.

We assessed electronic patient records as part of our assessment and found they were completed to a satisfactory standard. At the time of our assessment staff told us they were unable to access patients GP practice electronic health records. This means that staff could not access current information from the GP about the patient.

Patients were given time to ask any questions if they did not understand the information given to them. After the consultation had finished staff and consultants recorded the patient’s information and details of what was discussed during the appointment, what the next steps would be, and a letter would subsequently be generated to ensure the health records were up-to-date and correct. These were then sent to the appropriate person.

The service had a policy for patients who required additional support to access information and services including gaining consent for visually impaired patients in the outpatient department.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff participate in clinical audit in line with the hospital-wide audit schedules. These audits were either undertaken monthly or quarterly depending upon the agreed audit schedule. We were told that staff from other departments undertook audits in the outpatient department to ensure a fresh view of the processes and practices in place.

There was access to an on-site pharmacist for medicines advice but there was no physiotherapist available to provide advice and support.

Staff were experienced and qualified to work in the outpatient department. The lead for outpatients was supportive of staff in the area and staff told us that leaders in the outpatient department were supportive and approachable.

Appraisal compliance for outpatient staff was 87% within the last 12 months. Compliance with competency assessment was 100% for some areas e.g. manual ECG recording but needed improvement in other areas e.g. cannulation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

We observed staff of all levels working well together, there was good team working, with a positive culture. Staff communicated effectively to ensure patients care, and patient’s treatment needs were being met.

The service held a daily briefing meeting with all departments (daily 10@10 brief), an agenda was completed, and each department had the opportunity to give an update. Activity was discussed for the day as well as ongoing operational issues.

We also saw evidence of outpatient staff meetings where a range of subjects were discussed to keep staff informed of any issues in the hospital.

Staff also told us about a flexible and supportive approach to teamwork. For example, staff in the outpatient department also supported other departments when necessary, such as the ward area.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. The service did not always encourage people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

There was limited evidence of how the service supported people to live healthier lives. In the main reception area, there were booklets about how to access a service to support people living safely and comfortably at home and about support for mental health issues. We were informed that patient information leaflets were available in multiple languages and formats on the electronic consent and patient information system but we did not identify any further evidence on the hospital website of providing information to support patients to live healthier lives.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service monitored referral to treatment times of patients. The service carried out a range of audits to monitor the quality of care it provided and identified areas for improvement. Staff told us the service completed several audits, and we saw evidence of this which included the following: infection prevention and control, hand hygiene, World Health Organisation (WHO) minor operations including provision of post-operative instructions being given.

The service ensured they monitored staff training to ensure completion.

Further details about how the hospital monitored and improved outcomes for patients can be found in the surgery report.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Medical and nursing staff that we spoke with had a good understanding of the process for gaining consent before delivering any care and treatment. We were told that there were different consent forms for different treatments and procedures both written and electronic.

The service had a policy in place in relation to consent and ensuring patients could make decisions about their care and treatment who require additional support to access information and services.

Further details about consent for patients can be found in the surgery report.