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 people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

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.

Hamptons Hospital demonstrated a clear commitment to safety and transparency within its surgical services. Staff were clear on what incidents to report and how to report them and described a positive reporting culture where they felt safe and were encouraged to raise concerns, near misses, and feedback.

Between May 2025 and November 2025 there had been 6 patient safety incidents. Incidents were allocated an incident reference number and were reviewed promptly. There were 4 incidents categorised to the whole hospital site, 1 within the wards and 1 attributed to surgical theatres. There had been 0 never events since the service had been registered. A never event is a serious, wholly preventable patient safety incident that should not occur if the available preventative measures have been implemented by healthcare providers. Incidents had been investigated with actions that were followed up, such as staggering admissions to avoid delays to patients when there were multiple clinics.

Following an incident or near miss, the service lead talked through the investigation findings with staff and informed the team of any learning.

Staff confirmed they received learning from incidents through ward huddles and by email.

Staff understood duty of candour requirements and had access to policy guidance. We saw evidence that duty of candour had been applied in line with their policy.

Most staff told us there was a supportive culture in responding to incidents. They told us that debriefs would take place to provide support for staff if there was a serious incident.

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

Staff held regular and effective multidisciplinary team meetings to discuss all patients and improve their care. Relevant consultants reviewed each patient’s care pathway, according to their clinical needs.

Staff in the pre-operative assessment team screened patients using their medical histories and escalated concerns in line with the admission criteria. We saw evidence of this practice, and staff provided examples of how they followed the process. Staff discussed patients’ support needs before admission to minimise risk, taking into account the type of surgery planned. We also saw evidence of a surgical procedure being postponed because a patient was overweight; Staff provided advice on weight reduction before treatment could proceed.

Staff identified deteriorating patients using tools such as the national early warning score (NEWS).

The service had up to date processes in place to ensure that patients were rebooked following the cancellation of surgery. We identified instances of avoidable theatre list cancellations of theatre lists during our review of data submitted by the hospital. Staff told us that that equipment availability issues had contributed to these cancellations. The service reviewed lessons learned from these incidents to improve practise.

The provider had a discharge and planned transfer of care policy in place. Staff described how they managed a deteriorating patient and explained the escalation process clearly. Following the inspection, the provider shared the standard operating procedure, which set out discharge processes and included guidance on how to support patients who raised concerns after discharge. We spoke with 3 patients following discharge, all of whom felt well informed about their care and said they received appropriate support following their procedure and on leaving the hospital. We also reviewed patient records that covered the full patient pathway, including discharge.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff received training specific for their role on how to recognise and report abuse.

Staff at all levels understood safeguarding principles and how they applied in their role. Records from December 2025 showed that all clinical staff had completed safeguarding training to level 3 for adults. For children and young people, the service advised that on one under the age of 18 years attended consultations or treatment appointment. This included an adult patient’s own children or other children the patient may have contact with.

Staff were clear on how to facilitate and record informed patient consent and how to support those who may not be able to provide consent. The service had chaperone arrangements in place to support patients who requested additional support.

The service worked with patients to understand and manage risks by providing care in a way that was safe and supportive and that enabled them to do the things that mattered to them. Patients told us staff had clearly explained risks associated with their treatment and kept them up to date throughout their care and treatment. We reviewed 5 patient records, which confirmed all patients received post operative phone calls after discharge and had access to further clinical support if required.

Patients told us they felt fully involved and informed about their care. There was time given for patients to ask questions during each stage of their treatment.

Staff engaged with patients throughout their journey, including during admission to the hospital. On the day of admission for surgery, staff discussed relevant information with patients to support their hospital stay. Staff collected and recorded general admission details within the appropriate care pathway documentation.

There was always a resident medical officer (RMO) on site during surgery hours, and all had advanced life support (ALS) training. Consultants and surgeons followed a prescribed on-call operative or post-operative processes, and surgery teams conducted regular training scenarios around deteriorating patients and how to manage complications.

Staff used a nationally recognised tool called the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2), to identify deteriorating patients and escalated them appropriately. There was also a policy for how to manage a deteriorating patient within the service. We looked at 5 sets of records on the ward and these were all fully completed.

All patients attended a pre-operative assessment appointment to identify risk factors and additional requirements. These were fully documented in patient records. All pre-operative clinical tests were completed in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Staff completed risk assessments to identify each patients’ risk of developing blood clots, also known as venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) before and after surgery. We found completed VTE assessments in all 5 patient records we reviewed, and staff put preventative measures in place where appropriate.

In theatres, staff completed the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) checklists appropriately. The WHO checklist is a patient safety tool that helps reduce surgical errors and complications by improving team communication and confirming critical steps before, during, and after procedures.

Theatre staff participated in a daily morning huddle to discuss the operating list, ongoing investigations, and any recently reported incidents or concerns. In addition, each theatre team carried out a team brief before starting each operating list. We observed a team brief where staff discussed each patient scheduled for surgery and effectively communicated risks, allergies, medications, and required equipment.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The preoperative assessment area, ward and theatre areas were visibly clean, and well maintained.

Patients told us the environment was safe and that the design and condition of the rooms were of a high standard and met their expectations. They told us they had not experienced any issues relating to equipment and felt the premises and equipment were suitably maintained.

We observed up-to-date risk assessments and associated action plans. This included fire safety, ventilation, legionella flushing of water outlets and environmental risk assessments for theatre and wards areas. Staff responded to call bells in a timely manner when active by patients requiring assistance.

Staff were able to escalate concerns relating to the environment and equipment. Emergency resuscitation equipment was available and were checked daily. All the emergency resuscitation trolleys we saw were tagged to indicate they had been checked. Although the service held resuscitation equipment in line with Resuscitation Council guidance, the checklists included additional items, such as blood culture bottles that were not stored onsite, which made it unclear which equipment was required to be available. These concerns were feedback to the service who confirmed that these items had been removed.

We found that the built environment was of a high standard; however staff did not always have enough storage for equipment. Staff had also requested storage equipment This resulted in some clutter in clinical areas, such as items being stored on window frames.

As part of our inspection, we found that many items of equipment had not been portable appliance tested (PAT). We escalated this at the inspection and the service responded providing evidence of an audit of electrical equipment. The service maintained specialist equipment through a formal maintenance contract. A contracted provider also maintained piped gases, and staff carried out regularly checks.

The design of the environment followed national guidance. The service had enough suitable equipment to help them to safely care for patients. In theatres we reviewed equipment servicing history and found all equipment to be in date. Following our onsite assessment the service provided evidence that electrical equipment had relevant safety testing and servicing.

Staff we spoke with in theatres told us that, at times, they did not always have sufficient theatre equipment and consumable items. They explained that procurement processes were not always reliable, which had led to theatre lists being cancelled at short notice. Leaders acknowledged they were learning from these instances through reporting of incidents. They were streamlining the procurement process to make it quicker for stock to be ordered. They had placed a designated member of staff oversaw regularly used stock items and ensured their availability. Where we checked these items, we found that consumables and single use sterile equipment, including theatre equipment, were within their expiry dates.

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 reviewed induction materials provided for bank and permanent staff. These included information on service familiarisation, organisational values, line management review arrangements and role-specific competency records. Managers arranged theatre training for staff, which included role specific training, and held regular team meetings.

All ward staff had completed cannulation training. The service was also planning observational training at a local NHS hospital to identify learning opportunities related to effective discharge processes and patient flow.

The surgical division ensured that at least one member of recovery staff on duty at all times held appropriate and up to date advanced life support training and certification.

The service used a safer staffing tool to ensure appropriate ward staffing levels, which it calculated according to the type of surgery planned. The service also used a mix of shift patterns to ensure sufficient staffing during busier periods of the day.

The service maintained a pool of bank staff and did not use agency staff. All staff new to the surgical wards told us they received an appropriate supernumerary induction period, and bank staff told us they had completed an induction before working on the wards.

Consultant surgeons and anaesthetists provided care at the service under practising privileges . Practicing privileges operated through formal agreements between individual clinicians and the hospital, allowing clinicians to provide care at the facility following appropriate checks of their qualifications, experience, and suitability. The Hosiptal Director granted practicing privileges.

The hospital had a Medical Advisory Committee (MAC), which provided advice on governance and clinical matters. The MAC also reviewed practicing privileges, including each clinician’s scope of practice and ongoing competence.

Staff were experienced, qualified, and had appropriate skills and knowledge to meet patients’ needs. Managers made sure staff received specialist training relevant to their roles. All staff completed role-specific competency booklets to demonstrate and maintain their competence.

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.

Theatre areas were visibly clean and tidy, and staff checked equipment regularly. Staff labelled sharps bins in line with national guidance and disposed of these safely. Posters reminded staff and patients to wash their hands, and hand gel dispensers were readily available in all areas.

Staff followed processes to reduce the risk of infection. Housekeeping staff used "I am clean" stickers on equipment and areas of patient contact to show which items were now ready for use. Staff were bare below the elbow and washed their hands at appropriate time. They had access to, and used, appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Hand sanitisers were available and there were adequate handwashing facilities. Staff were aware of the latest infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance and could escalate concerns about infection control in daily meetings.

The service had commissioned an independent review in August 2025, which included infection prevention and control. Leaders were working through an action plan to improve compliance with the National Standards of Healthcare Cleanliness 2025.

All areas and equipment we inspected were visibly clean and well maintained. The service reported zero infection rates for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Escherichia coli (E.coli) and Clostridioides difficile.

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 happen.

The provider had a policy on place for the safe management of medicines policy and a code of practice for controlled drugs. Medical practitioners, including consultants and medical officers, prescribed all medicines.

Staff stored medicines securely, and the pharmacy team oversaw medicine management and were available to provide support. Doctors and pharmacists worked collaboratively as part of a multidisciplinary approach.

Staff followed established systems and processes to prescribe and administer medicines safely. Doctors prescribed medicines using paper-based charts, which staff stored within patients' nursing record. Pharmacy teams supported the effective use of medicines through interventions and regular ward visits.