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

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This was the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

Patients we spoke with told us they had a good experience of their visit and were impressed with staff attitude and communication from staff including the reception area.

The service provided an accessible environment, and staff informed us that a hearing loop system was available.

The service worked in partnership with patients to improve its provision. We saw posters displayed in the reception area of “How did we do” inviting feedback using a QR code.

Patients were also sent an email after their appointment to request that they complete a patient satisfaction survey. Results from the Hamptons Survey Feedback (April to September 2025) showed consistently good levels of satisfaction with 98% of respondents saying they would use the hospital again. Also, 85% of respondents said that risks, benefits and processes were explained completely where procedures were carried out.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service accepted both NHS patients and private patients, using an electronic referral system. Each clinical speciality has included exclusion criteria for referral and allows accessibility requirements to be specified for patients prior to their appointment. e.g. ENT did not undertake balance tests as they did not have a tilt table.

When patent appointments were booked, most patients were called to agree their appointment time. This was followed by a letter generated from the system to confirm their appointment, along with a text message that was generated 48 hours before the appointment as a reminder of their attendance. An email was also sent to patients.

We were informed that patients had flexibility for making their appointments. For example, some clinics ran until 8pm and there were clinics on a Saturday.

We were informed that at the time of our inspection there was good availability for appointments in a few clinical specialties in the next month which means that patients could be seen quickly.

The service operated a 6-week cancellation policy for consultant clinics and if this occurred it was recorded on the incident reporting system. We were informed that patients were informed of this and offered alternative appointments. The service had a process in place to manage any cancellations of clinics. There had been 29 clinics cancelled in the period January-November 2025 for a variety of reasons including consultant sickness, and lack of equipment/chemicals for endoscopes. The booking team were flexible to meet the needs of the service and patients.

The service monitored when patients did not attend (DNA) their appointments, the data showed for the months from January to December 2025 the average DNA rate was 5.9% (range 3.9%-8%).

We were informed that all clinics aimed to start within 5 minutes of the scheduled start time and if there were two consistent events/delays the clinic template was reviewed and changed to ensure that time allocation and start time was more accurate for patients.

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.

The hospital had a statement about maintaining confidentiality of patient records. As stated previously 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. This limited the accessibility of information for some patients, particularly those with communication or literacy needs.

Results from the patient survey feedback (April-September 2025) reported that 89% of patients felt they had received the right amount of information about treatment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a complaints policy in place which had been issued in October 2021 with a review date for October 2026.

Staff had a good understanding of meeting the needs of the patients and the community.

There was information displayed in the waiting room for patients to be able to provide feedback about their care and treatment to the Care Quality Commission.

The service kept a complaints log and there were 20 complaints related to outpatient services over the period July 2025 to November 2025 which included concerns about cancelled appointments and patients unhappy with consultations. We reviewed some of the responses given to complainants about their concerns and these were all satisfactory.

Staff shared complaints that had been received from patients at the monthly outpatient staff meetings and any learning from the complaints were shared with staff.

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.

The service was designed to be accessible and timely for people who may have greater difficulty accessing care e.g. people with mobility issues. Staff explained that they monitored Did Not Attend (DNA) rates and in most cases the initial appointment was agreed with the patient in advance to reduce the risk of any cancellations.

The service applied clear inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure patients received safe and appropriate care. Patients who met the criteria for treatment were generally in good health or had only mild systemic conditions, placing them at low risk of complications. Those with more complex needs were referred to the NHS for further assessment and treatment.

The service was unable to provide data relating to patient waits after arrival due to problems with the computer system being used. However, we were informed that for some clinics, for example, in the cardiology and respiratory clinics, patients were asked to attend early so they could have their investigations, such as their blood pressure and electrocardiogram (ECG) undertaken in advance of their consultation. Work was being undertaken by the service to be able to collect this data in the future. If a clinic was delayed, we were told by leaders that every effort was made to inform affected patients as soon as possible, explain the reason for the delay and offer alternatives where appropriate.

The service had a spacious waiting room with enough seating, enabling patients to bring family members or carers when needed. It also provided sufficient toilet facilities, including accessible toilets for patients and accompanying relatives.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion and human rights. Staff recognised the barriers to care that people could face in relation to communication and understanding procedures, and they worked collaboratively to overcome these.

The provider’s dignity and respect policy set out clear processes for advancing equality of opportunity. This included guidance to ensure staff did not discriminate, including on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

The hospital services had undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

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.

People were supported to make decisions about their care through informed consent. Patients were given sufficient time to ask questions about their treatment and the options available to help them plan their care. We spoke with patients in relation to their care, treatment and planning for the future, patients told us they felt staff explained their treatment in a way they were able to understand.

The service had a booking system that enabled flexibility to meet the needs of patients.