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 was the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 3.The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Staff knew how to report incidents on the electronic incident reporting system. We reviewed the incidents reported for outpatients over a 12-month period. There were 30 incidents for outpatients. The review identified that the main theme from the incidents was the cancellation of clinics due to unavailability of medical staff for various reasons (33% of incidents) and a small number of medication related issues were also reported. The incident data did not specify the severity of the events, however, no serious incidents related to outpatient services were identified.

Heads of services discussed incidents at the daily operational communication and planning meeting

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

Nursing staff and healthcare assistants in outpatients worked well together and there were good working relationships between staff.

The service used electronic and some paper records and ensured they were secure and stored safely. The service had a referral pathway outlined for both NHS and GP referrals, supported by speciality specific pathways such as cardiology and ear, nose and throat (ENT). This process ensured the team received essential information to determine whether they could safely meet the patient’s needs.

The service accepted only people assessed as routine priority. Staff told us that if they identified anyone with an incidental finding of suspected cancer, they immediately referred the person to a 2 week wait pathway to the local trust or other appropriate provider.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always work well with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how to achieve that. They did not always concentrate on improving people’s lives or protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. They did not always share concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff had completed safeguarding adults training at level 1, 2 and 3 depending on their roles, with update compliance exceeding 85%. They also completed level 1 safeguarding children training, achieving 86% compliance. Although the service was not registered to treat people under 18, children could be present in the department when accompanying parents or carers.

There was a mixed response to staff awareness of who the hospitals safeguarding lead was. Some staff were aware who the safeguarding lead for the hospital was whilst others were not aware. This meant that safeguarding leads were not always well recognised in the hospital.

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 with people clearly and explained their care and treatment. For example, during an ENT consultation, staff informed the patient about each step of the ear examination and provided feedback on the findings. After the consultation, staff entered the notes into the electronic system and sent them to the administrative team to produce a report for the doctor.

People told us that staff communicated well about side-effects and provided clear information overall. Clinic rooms contained documentation on how to access and use the interpreter service, although the information was out of date at the time of our inspection. The receptionist greeted people warmly and offered guidance on what to do and where to go. Staff also encouraged people to provide feedback on the service using a QR code.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The outpatient and reception areas were spacious and in good repair. However, inspectors noted peeling paint in one of the reception area toilets which will require some repair to prevent further deterioration.

We saw evidence that staff-maintained equipment appropriately, including items such as the medical oxygen sensor. However, we found several pieces of electrical equipment that were overdue for Portable Appliance Testing (PAT). We escalated these concerns, and leaders told us they had a plan to ensure all required equipment would become PAT compliant.

All areas in the outpatient department were visibly clean and tidy. The service had clinic rooms, these were all equipped correctly, each room had clinical hand-washing facilities.

The service had policies and procedures covering cleaning, infection risk management and equipment maintenance to minimise environmental risks. A housekeeping team cleaned the outpatient’s department according to an agreed schedule. Leaders told us the housekeeping standard operating procedures and check sheets for cleaning would be updated to make it clearer that tasks had been completed according to the agreed schedule following our inspection.

Staff told us there were sometimes challenges in obtaining stock in a timely manner for a clinic list, for example, disinfectant wipes for cleaning medical devices. This had an impact on staff preparing for a clinic and could lead to the cancellation of a clinic. We also found some evidence of a small number of expired consumables i.e. masks and gaps in completion of oxygen and suction checklist.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We spent time observing staff interacting with people and there was enough staff at all levels and experience.

The service had processes in place to monitor staff absences, they also looked at clinics for the day and reviewed the daily planner to enable them to identify the number of staff required on each shift and adjust staffing levels as required.

A request for an increase in the establishment was made earlier in the year by the outpatient manager following a review of the staffing to improve patient safety. In December 2024 there was a 31% reliance on bank staff.

The outpatient staffing profile for February 2025 stated that the establishment was 6.8 whole time equivalents (wte) with use of bank/agency staff of 0.43 wte (6.3%) and sickness at the time of 0.36 wte (5.3%). We asked for more recent data but were not provided it.

We were informed that staff were deployed flexibly across other areas within the hospital in addition to outpatient areas when required to meet service needs such as ward area, reception and diagnostic imaging. This allowed safe staffing to be maintained during busy periods in other areas of the hospital services.

Staff received mandatory training and whilst the number of types of staff groups was small, overall compliance was satisfactory.

Medical staff worked across several locations under practicing privileges arrangements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

We saw evidence that the outpatient department achieved an overall 92% compliance for the cleaning audit in April 2025 and 100% for hand hygiene in November 2025 which includes bare below the elbows.

We observed privacy curtains in consulting rooms although one of the curtains had not been changed since November 2024. We observed there was sufficient and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) to keep people safe. We observed that there were gaps in completion of room audits which included data on cleaning tasks and checks of environment and equipment. We were informed that staff were not always recording when rooms were not in use and staff had been asked to complete this. However, the consulting rooms were generally clean and clutter free.

The service had several policies in place dealing with patients with suspected communicable diseases however some of the policies had expired at the time of the inspection, for example patients with suspected or confirmed influenza. This may mean that current best practice is not used.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

There were systems and processes in place to ensure medicines were stored, prescribed and supplied safely for people attending outpatient clinics. Pre-packed medicines for common conditions were stored securely in locked cabinets, with daily temperature checks, which were recorded. These packs included labels for prescribers to complete, supporting safe supply. A signature log and serial number system was in place for private prescriptions, these were checked twice daily to ensure accurate tracking and monitoring. Most prescriptions were dispensed by the onsite pharmacy. Pharmacy counselled patients on medicines and arranged delivery or courier services for medicines not available on the day. This enabled patients to have flexibility when getting their medicines that met their individual needs. Where postal delivery was required, the service had a robust process to track medicines from posting to delivery, and we saw evidence of this during our inspection. Antibiotics were available, and antimicrobial stewardship was supported by pharmacy, with plans to involve a microbiologist to ensure prescribing aligned with best practice. Staff communicated effectively with patients about their medicines and confirmed allergy status prior to supply.