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’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

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.

Patients received an initial consultation to identify their surgical needs and preferences, which staff used to determine eligibility for treatment at the hospital. The service provided patients with relevant information before their procedure, along with contact details for any further queries. On the day of the surgery, staff carried out assessments to review patients’ needs, obtain informed consent, and confirm their suitability for surgery.

We reviewed 5 patient care records and found them to be e complete and up to date. The records included individual surgical treatment plans and prescribed medicines for each patient. Records also showed that staff completed observations before, during and after surgery.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to identify patients with communication or information needs and were aware of the services’ expectations for meeting the accessible information standards. The service had installed hearing loops throughout the hospital to support patients with hearing needs. Staff also explained how they used a live translation tool to communicate effectively with patients who did not speak English.

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.

The service had evidence based policies and procedures in place, which staff could access electronically. However, some policies and procedures were not up to date. Leaders recognised this and were in the process of reviewing and updating them.

Leaders reviewed audit findings to monitor compliance with best practice guidance. These audits covered areas like infection prevention and control, health and safety, and safety checklists. We observed staff using the World Health Organisation (WHO) safety checklist effectively.

During our assessment, we observed staff consistently following best practice throughout appointments and during procedures. Staff demonstrated good knowledge and understanding of best practice.

Patients received accurate advice about nutrition and hydration before their procedures. The service provided information on nutrition and hydration to support patients whilst they used the service.

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.

During our inspection, we observed good teamworking within staff teams. Staff also worked effectively across the hospital and contributed to patient care across different areas. Staff told us that teams across the hospital shared a strong commitment to patient care and worked well together.

The service held safety huddles twice a day. During these huddles, the theatre service lead provided staff with updates on new or changing risks within theatres and on the ward.

We saw teams used daily huddles to highlight patient related issues, such as allergies and individualised care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

Patients who used the service told us they received good support from staff and were provided with verbal and written information around healthier living.

Staff discussed lifestyle factors that could affect health, including alcohol use, smoking and vaping during preoperative assessments. They provided patients with health advice related to these factors and explained their potential impact on surgical outcomes.

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.

Patients told us they did not have to wait long for appointments to access the service. They told us they had received after care support from consultants and physiotherapists.

Patients spoke positively about the quality of care and treatment they received. They reported positive outcomes after surgery that enabled them to be independent and return to work.

Staff had access to clear policies, guidelines, and escalation pathways for managing deteriorating and septic patients. Recognised tools were used to detect and respond to clinical deterioration, including the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2).

Staff used technology to provide prompt access to blood test results and imaging scans, supporting timely clinical decision-making.

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.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We saw that patient consent was always obtained appropriately at all stages throughout the surgical process. Consent was also documented appropriately and in line with legislation and guidance in the 5 patient records we reviewed.

The service did not operate on patients where it was known they lacked capacity to consent to treatment.

Staff were able to describe how they would seek consent from patients who did not speak English as a first language. There were regular reviews of patient records to ensure consent was being appropriately recorded.