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 is the first assessment for this 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.

Staff met patients at reception, escorted them to the ward and showed them to their rooms. Staff explained to patients what to expect and how long their stay would be.

Staff identified patients who required emergency care and escalated concerns promptly to the resident medical officer. These patients received one-to-one care and observations until they were transferred to the local NHS trust.

The service planned physiotherapy staffing in line with expected admissions and treatment needs on the ward. Physiotherapists updated nursing staff about changes in patients’ mobility to ensure staff supported patients to be as independent as possible.

Staff booked follow up appointments before discharge and provided written confirmation, discharge letters, and after care advice, including wound care leaflets.

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.

All patients received a wellbeing follow up call 48-hours after discharge. Staff told us they followed specific guidance to ensure practitioners asked appropriate clinical questions and escalated concerns to a senior team member when necessary. Depending on the concern, staff either invited patients back to the hospital for a clinical review or signposted them to other services.

The hospital had processes in place to manage referrals through the NHS e-Referral Service (eRS) to optimise patient choice, support timely access to care, and uphold clinical governance standards. Consultants who chose to undertake NHS work at Hampton Hospital were listed on the eRS, which supported patients and GPs to select their preferred clinician.

The hospital adhered to the corporate data protection policy, and staff completed annual data awareness training as part of mandatory e-learning.

The hospital provided a car park at the front of the building for patient and visitor use, including designated disabled parking spaces to support easier access to the reception area.

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 service did not provide all information in accessible formats, and staff did not offer leaflets in alternative languages. However, the service had a hearing loop system in place at reception.

Information governance arrangements protected the confidentiality of patient records. Staff stored patient records securely in a locked office area. The service provided information leaflets that included useful contact numbers for the hospital and ward.

We reviewed documentation that showed the service gave patients information about their treatments, pathways to local services and their rights as patients throughout the care journey.

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.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately and protected patients who raised concerns or complaints from discrimination and harassment. Patient feedback was shared with the hospital board to support learning and reinforce good practice. Themes were shared with staff as part of lessons learned so that proactive actions were implemented to embed improvements.

The service had signage about complaints and information available for patients to take and read at their convenience, which explained how to raise a complaint. Patients told us they understood how to raise concerns and said that, when they did so, the service provided them with feedback.

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.

Staff assessed patients listed for surgery according to clinical urgency and the length of time since referral, which ensured that patients with the greatest clinical need were prioritised. The inpatient bookings team managed surgical scheduling in line with both clinical priority and chronological order. At each point of contact, staff reviewed patients to ensure the procedure remained clinically appropriate and that patients were still suitable for treatment.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients’ individual needs, such as providing walking aids for those with mobility issues.

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

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture that encouraged people using the service to share their views. Patients we spoke with said they felt comfortable speaking with staff about any concerns they had.

Staff identified potential risks and care needs during the pre-assessment clinic, which allowed them to put appropriate adjustments in place to support each patient’s care pathway.

Staff at all levels had completed Level 1 equality, diversity, and human rights training.

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, including at the end of their life.

Patients told us that staff at the hospital personalised their care plans to reflect their individual circumstances and preferences. One patient described being assessed by a doctor and undergoing minor surgery on the same day. They explained staff listened to them, took their concerns seriously, and enabled them to return to work and continue with their day to day activities. The service informed the patient’s GP of the treatment provided through written correspondence.