The Hampshire Clinic

Updated 30 April 2026

Date of assessment: 05 to 13 November 2025. The Hampshire Clinic is an independent hospital which provides a range of services to NHS and private patients including; medical care, critical care, diagnostic imaging, surgery and outpatients’ services.

This assessment looked at Outpatients and Surgery services, due to information of concern, which we rated as good. The rating of Outpatients and Surgery services have been combined with the ratings of the other services from the last inspections. See our previous reports to get a full picture of all the other services at The Hampshire Clinic. The rating of The Hampshire Clinic remains good.

At this assessment we identified a breach of regulation in relation to good governance.

Updated 3 October 2025

Date of assessment: 05 November to 13 November 2025. The Hampshire Clinic is an independent hospital providing patient care and treatment for the assessment service groups of; medical care, critical care, diagnostic imaging, surgery and outpatients services.

This service’s provider is the Circle Health Group. This was a responsive assessment which looked at Outpatients services, in response to monitoring information we received about the service.

We rated the service as good. Staff assessed and mitigated risks. There were enough staff to ensure people’s safety and meet their needs. Staff consistently protect people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff assessed risk to people's health and safety and mitigated them where identified. Governance systems and audits were effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement.

Updated 3 October 2025

Date of assessment: 05 November to 13 November 2025. The Hampshire Clinic is an independent hospital providing patient care and treatment for the assessment service groups of; medical care, critical care, diagnostic imaging, surgery and outpatients services.

This service’s provider is the Circle Health Group. This was a responsive assessment which looked at Surgical services, in response to monitoring information we received about the service.

We rated the service as good. Staff assessed and mitigated risks. There were enough staff to ensure people’s safety and meet their needs. Staff consistently protect people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff assessed risk to people's health and safety and mitigated them where identified. Governance systems and audits were effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement.

Updated 6 December 2021

Medical care services were a small proportion of the hospital's activity. We looked at endoscopy and oncology as part of this inspection when assessing medical care

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink. Managers made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

Updated 27 November 2018

Children and young people’s services were a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was Surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the Surgery section.

We have not rated the children and young people service, because we do not have enough evidence due to the small number of children using the service.

Updated 6 December 2021

The critical care service at BMI The Hampshire Clinic was a three bedded unit and provided level 3 and level 2 care and treatment for patients following elective surgery. This was predominantly (85%) for patients having extensive abdominal surgery and intra peritoneal chemotherapy for Pseudomyxoma peritonei, a rare peritoneal cancer. This service was part of the Peritoneal Malignancy Institute in Basingstoke. The remaining 15% of activity was for complex elective surgery. Patients were either self-funded, insurance funded or funded by the NHS through contractual agreements between the hospital and the NHS to carry out NHS work.

At the time of the inspection the critical care unit was closed for a three-week period. As a result we were not able to observe any staff to patient interactions, were not able to speak to patients or their relatives and only spoke to two members of the nursing staff (one permanent staff and one bank staff) and the lead intensivist for the unit.

We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities.

However:

• The critical care service did not have its own governance processes but was managed under ward governance processes. There was a lack of opportunities for critical care staff to meet, discuss and learn from the performance of their service and no formal risk management process in the department. They did not proactively identify, monitor and review risks. There were limited mechanisms to engage with patients and the public and staff had limited opportunity to contribute to decision-making.

The critical care service is a small proportion of hospital activity. The main service was surgery. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the surgery section.

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective and responsive, although leadership requires improvement.

Updated 6 December 2021

Our rating of this service stayed the same. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Not all staff were familiar with the location of policies, procedures and IR(ME)R procedures.
• The computerised tomography (CT) scan procedures were out of date (March 2020).

We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led.