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

We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of people who used services and wider communities. We checked that leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The hospital opened in 2023 and had developed a vision and strategy in 2025 to develop into an integrated health village from a private surgical hospital.

However, the outpatient service did not have a local strategy or vision document to align with the hospital-wide strategy and vision.

Senior leaders that we spoke with talked about the vision and strategy but were realistic about the timescale to develop their ambitions since the opening of the hospital due to various factors such as reduction in contracted services with the NHS.

Whilst we were informed that staff were involved in the work on strategy and vision some staff we spoke to were not fully aware of this work.

There were staff meetings for outpatient staff where there were opportunities to discuss the strategy.

Further details about how the hospital shared direction and culture can be found in the surgery report.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Staff told us the outpatient manager and senior managers were supportive, compassionate, and approachable. Some staff told us senior leaders were visible and approachable whilst others did not feel confident with the senior leadership team.

Senior staff told us how they developed staff to obtain higher positions as part of succession planning and providing opportunities for growth. Just over half of staff (55%, 6 out of 11) felt that they received effective support, supervision, and opportunities for development.

We were told by the outpatient manager that staff in outpatients were empowered to undertake management tasks such as rota construction, clinic allocation and appraisals. Staff had undertaken a variety of development opportunities such as Microsuction training and Basic Life Support instructor training

The service had a clear staff structure in place although there had been several recent changes in personnel at senior level.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. People did not always feel they could speak up and that their voice would be heard.

The hospital had a Freedom to Speak up (FTSU) policy that clearly indicated the duties within the hospital for both staff and senior leaders.

The hospital had a Freedom to Speak up Guardian (FTSUG). Staff told us there were no FTSU meetings and were not all aware who the FTSUG was. We were also informed that there were FTSU champions that supported the FTSU guardian and to promote a speaking up culture.

In a staff survey, 64% of outpatient staff (7 out of 11) agreed that they felt confident about raising concerns with their line manager or FTSUG and 60% (6 out of 10) felt confident that actions would be taken to address any concerns raised with their manager. However, some staff told us they would raise any concerns with the outpatient manager, as they felt confident any concerns raised would be addressed by them.

There was a positive culture within the service and staff morale was good.

Further details on freedom to speak up can be found in the surgery report.

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 equality, diversity and inclusion through policies and mandatory training, which helped set expectations for fair treatment and respect at work. Staff told us they felt comfortable being themselves and described a culture where colleagues treated each other fairly.

Staff told us they felt supported by the outpatient manager and felt they could raise either work or personal concerns. In a staff survey, 73% (8 out of 11) outpatient staff told us they felt staff were treated fairly, regardless of ethnic background, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability or race and that equality and diversity were actively promoted.

The hospital had a diverse staff team and worked within a diverse community. We were informed by leaders that there were plans to actively source sign language courses for staff and develop a video interpretation system.

We were informed that diverse recruitment panels were in place to reduce any bias and there was a staff wellbeing forum in place.

Leaders ensured there was collaboration with staff, discussed staff wellbeing, and held a number of events to promote this. In a staff survey, 70% (7 out of 10) of outpatient staff felt that the hospital placed a strong emphasis on the health and wellbeing of staff.

Further details on workforce equality, diversity and inclusion can be found in the surgery report.

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 managers operated governance processes, throughout the service and with partner organisations.

The service had good governance systems for consultants who worked at other services. There was a comprehensive practising privileges policy which contained details of the criteria and conditions under which registered medical practitioners maybe granted authorisation to practice at the hospital.

The service had structures, processes, and systems of accountability in place, so all levels of the management knew and understood their roles and responsibilities.

The outpatient manager was a member of the hospital clinical governance committee, and this ensured issues could be raised at the meeting relevant to outpatients as well as ensuring information could be communicated back to staff following the meetings. The service held team meetings with the staff team, but the evidence we were provided did not have clinical governance as a standing agenda item listed. This means that we were not assured that staff were being given information about clinical governance issues within the hospital.

At the hospital clinical governance meetings topics discussed included risks and the risk register, incidents, complaints and clinical audit.

The hospital risk register had a section for outpatient services, and we saw evidence that risks were being mitigated.

The outpatient service had produced a business continuity plan if the electronic patient management system became unavailable.

As stated previously, some policies were found to have expired at the time of our inspection but these have been updated following the inspection.

Further details on governance, management and sustainability can be found in the surgery report.

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 hospital worked in partnership with a local NHS hospital to reduce local NHS waiting times to the benefit of local communities. There had also been a recent commitment by the hospital to make expert mental health support accessible for the local community.

Following the inspection the service provided evidence of a teledermatology service to support primary care

Further details on partnership and communities can be found in the surgery report.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

Staff were given time and support to develop improvements and introduce innovation which led directly to changes in care delivery. Innovations were evident within the outpatient service. Staff described several quality improvements that had been implemented in the outpatient department. These included introducing speciality specific trolley drawers that staff could easily move around the department. The service also created files containing information and request forms specific to each Integrated Care Boards (ICB’s) prior approval requirements. In addition, the service changed how staff recorded investigations on the electronic patient management system. The new process automatically alerts the bookings team when an investigation, such as an ECG, has been completed. This change reduced the workload for the bookings team and lowered the risk of missed diagnostic tests or unnecessary appointments.

Further details on learning, improvement and innovation can be found in the surgery report.