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

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

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.

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.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team. Staff at the service were involved in plans to develop the service and improve their offer to local people. The Hampton values were known as SPICES this included:

• Simplicity and Speed

We keep processes clear and straightforward and check no one is left waiting.

• Personalised Experiences

We treat everyone individually and support each other to make care personal.

• Innovation

We’re curious, always seeking new ways to improve and do better.

• Clinical Excellence

We’re proud to deliver the best care and support each other to be our best.

• Empowerment

We give patients and staff the confidence and support to make informed decisions.

• Sustainability

We grow responsibly, taking care of our community and the environment.

The Hampton vision aimed to make healthcare more accessible and responsive within local communities by expanding service availability closer to where people live, offering patients greater choice and flexibility in how care is delivered, and reducing waiting times through more efficient and integrated pathways.

Most staff told us they felt respected, supported, and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care and worked well together to ensure they achieved good outcomes for patients. Staff were positive and proud to work for the service.

Staff reported challenges with procurement processes, stating that requests for stock and services were not always fulfilled in a timely manner. Some staff described occasions where surgical lists had been cancelled due to lack of available equipment and this had impacted on team morale. Staff also told us that at times, financial decisions made at senior leadership level had contributed to these shortages and had occasionally resulted in the cancellation of planned activity.

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.

Leaders at all levels were experienced in their roles. The senior leadership team demonstrated a broad range of experience, including delivering services within both the NHS and the private sector. The registered manager was the CEO and director of the hospital. At the time of our inspection, the clinical services manager had been in post for a few weeks and brought previous leadership experience from both the NHS and private sector healthcare settings.

Staff consistently reported that leadership within the service and the wider organisation was strong. Leaders were described as well respected, highly visible, approachable, and supportive.

Managers were passionate about the services they led and worked collaboratively with their teams, fostering a positive, engaged, and cohesive working environment.

We conducted a staff survey, which received responses from 11 members of the surgical team. The anonymous survey was open for 10 days following our site assessment. Most respondents were positive in response to the statement ‘There are cooperative, supportive and appreciative relationships among staff. Staff and teams work collaboratively, share responsibility and resolve conflict quickly and constructively’.

During our inspection, staff spoke positively about their peers and leaders. The service was led by an experienced senior leadership team. Leaders at all levels were knowledgeable about the services they were responsible for and had the appropriate qualifications and experience. They demonstrated integrity in their engagement with us through their openness and honesty when discussing challenges in the service.

The ward and theatre managers were responsible for the day to day operational management of the ward and theatre areas. Lead consultants and anaesthetists held clinical responsibility for patients within their respective surgical specialty areas.

Staff were positive about their leaders and colleagues, and leaders spoke highly of their teams.

Leaders demonstrated an understanding of the key risks and challenges across the surgical services and were able to articulate the improvement actions they had undertaken or planned to address these risks. However, the actions taken had not yet resulted in effective and timely improvements in the overall management of risks, issues, and performance across the surgical services.

Leaders at all levels were visible within the service and approachable for patients and staff. Managers provided new staff with a role specific induction and ensured staff received supervision. Most staff we spoke reported that they felt well supported in their role.

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.

Prior to our inspection, we received 2 anonymous whistleblowing concerns relating to leadership and the availability of equipment. The provider acknowledged that further work was needed to strengthen a positive and open culture where staff felt confident to speak up and assured 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).

Some staff reported that there could be greater transparency around decision making related to procurement. Leaders recognised this feedback and acknowledged improvements were required to increase the effectiveness of responses to operational challenges.

Patients told us they felt comfortable and supported by staff to raise questions with staff. They said staff were considerate, explained everything clearly and did not hurry or pressure them when discussing treatment decisions.

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 had an Equal Opportunities policy, an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy and an ‘Equality, Diversity and Inclusion in Employment’ policy. Staff were aware of these policies, and their practice reflected the organisation’s commitment to equality diversity and inclusion in service delivery.

Staff told us they felt able to bring their whole selves to work. The service provides workplace adjustment, including flexible working arrangements, religious and personal accommodations and reasonable adjustments to support disability or health-related needs.

Service leaders told us the workforce was diverse and that all staff were required to complete equality and diversity training that was completed as part of their induction.

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.

Governance arrangements at the hospital had not yet been fully embedded. We reviewed clinical governance meeting minutes from February and April 2025, which indicated that attendance by the by the medical director, who chaired the Medical Advisory Committee (MAC), was inconsistent. We were informed that the medical director was planning to step away from this role to enable more effective oversight of clinical decision making.

Some policies were out of date and required review and updating, for example the resuscitation policy had not been updated to reflect the inclusion of theatre areas. This information had not been effectively communicated to staff who were responsible for completing emergency equipment checks, which increased the risk of inconsistent practice. Following the inspection the service provided updated policies.

Medical advisory committee (MAC) meetings followed a standardised agenda that provided oversight of the hospital’s operations. Learning from incidents and complaints were reviewed, monitored and actions were taken to reduce the likelihood of recurrence.

Clinical audits were reviewed, and actions were assigned to relevant staff to audit findings were responded to and improvements implemented.

The hospital had a planned maintenance programme in place, which covered key infrastructure areas. This included heating, ventilation and gas scavenging systems. We saw evidence of scheduled servicing and maintenance, and related logs which were up to date.

The surgical risk register identified risks such as the cancellation of procedures due to the non-delivery of consumable items. This risk was being mitigated through daily meetings with the stores team to review stock.

Team managers had access to information to support them with their management roles. This included data relating to service performance, staffing levels and patient care.

The hospital had a business continuity plan in place; however, this had expired and was due for renewal in August 2024. Following the inspection an updated version was submitted. The plan was intended to support escalation and major incident management and included guidance to minimise disruption in the event of incidents such as a heatwave, telecommunications failure, or fuel shortages. We were told that leaders were urgently reviewing out of date procedures to ensure they were current and effective.

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 people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Leaders engaged with external stakeholders, such as the Integrated Care Board and local NHS trust for which the hospital delivered contracted services. We spoke with external stakeholders, who told us that the provider actively engaged in partnership working. We also saw evidence of stakeholder meetings through reviewed meeting minutes.

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. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Leaders were focused on improving the day case pathway from GP referral to treatment, with the aim of enabling the hospital to operate as a one stop service for patients seeking timely and responsive care, without the longer waits commonly associated within NHS services.

An orthopaedic knee surgeon working at the hospital hosted a clinical education evening, bringing together local physiotherapists, GPs, osteopaths and healthcare professionals. The event aimed to raise awareness of referral criteria and diagnostic pathways in order to improve the quality and effectiveness of referrals.