The Hampshire Clinic

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 and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we inspected but did not rate this key question. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

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.

All patients with appointments in the outpatient's department were required to complete a standardised comprehensive health assessment document. This encouraged patients to self-identify any additional needs or reasonable adjustments to personalise care and treatment. Staff reviewed and updated these, as necessary.

The service provided care and treatment to adults and children aged 16 to 18, who were able to be treated on the adult pathway. Patients received appropriate assessments for the care and treatment they needed. The inspection team reviewed 4 patient records. These records showed that patients had been assessed for specific risks as required, including falls risk and pre-operative assessment.

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.

Staff appraisals were undertaken on a yearly basis. Records showed leaders ensured these took place as planned. Most staff had had their appraisal in the expected timeframe, with one remaining overdue. Leaders ensured staff received the necessary training for their roles and supported maintenance of skills by rotating staff to other clinical areas such as the ward and preoperative assessment clinic.

The outpatients service had access to a wide range of specialists, enabling staff to meet the varied needs of patients. Staff were able to clearly describe how to refer patients onwards when patients required care or treatment not available on site.

The service had processes to support patients who requested a clinical review or second opinion. This process was overseen by senior leaders at the location and at provider level. Between November 2024 and November 2025, 7 patients requested a second opinion. For all these patients, leaders said these had taken place and concerns resolved.

In response to Martha's rule, the central provider had recently established a ‘Call for Concern’ process that was being rolled out at this location. This meant patients, relatives or carers were able to contact the critical care outreach team if they were concerned about their care and treatment. The service was mainly intended for inpatient access but was still relevant for the outpatient's department.

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.

Clinical leads met daily to ensure the smooth running of departments across the service. They discussed staffing and sickness levels, areas of risk or concern and worked together to make sure the service worked as planned.

Team meetings occurred bimonthly. These were minuted and circulated amongst staff to support handover of information and learning. To support learning, clinical leaders delivered monthly ‘Lunch and learn’ sessions which focused on improvement areas.

When patients transitioned from outpatients consultations to surgery pathways, the process was initiated by medical secretaries who liaised with bookings teams to support efficient planning. Nonclinical staff said this process worked well. Leaders met once a week to review upcoming planned surgical activity and ensure all patients received appropriate preassessment.

Teams worked together to deliver seamless and joined up multidisciplinary care. The physiotherapy team worked alongside outpatients, preassessment and surgical teams throughout a patients’ joint replacement pathway. Physiotherapy staff undertook individualised preassessment for all patients receiving hip and knee replacements. This included gait pattern assessment, prehabilitation exercises and exercise equipment. Patients were seen in physiotherapy outpatients 1 week following discharge from knee replacement surgery, and weeks 2 and 6 follow up for hips.

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.

The service supported the national drive to reduce health inequalities by promoting and referring patients to additional support services in line with national CORE20PLUS5 agenda. Core20PLUS5 is a national NHS England approach to inform action to reduce healthcare inequalities at both national and system level. Staff screened patients for alcohol and smoking behaviours at preassessment. Patients who presented with long term conditions such as hypertension or diabetes, were provided with tailored health promotion advice and optimisation in advance of surgery. If this was a new condition, they were referred to their GP for management as appropriate.

The service used social media advertising to encourage health promotion. This included areas such as men's health, raising awareness of different conditions and health assessments.

One patient said they were ‘coached on their lifestyle to manage their health and conditions better.’ This was a consistent, positive experience across the different areas of the service they had accessed.

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.

The service offered pre and postoperative rehabilitation programmes. Between August and October 2025, the physiotherapy service received 32 new referrals. For patients who had had knee replacement surgery, classes were held with a maximum of 4 patients at a time. In this period, 25 classes were held with a total of 85 attendees. The physiotherapy service monitored the outcomes using a nationally recognised tool, the Global Rate of Change (GROC) score, to measure a patients’ change in overall health status. Most patients reported their overall condition had improved. Of these, 81% felt a great deal better with an average pain score on discharge of 3/10.

The service monitored patient reported outcomes data, measuring the experience of patients before and after surgery. Senior leaders used sophisticated software to monitor performance against other hospitals under the provider, NHS, and other independent health services. The average improvement rate between April 2023 and October 2025 was 98.4% for hip replacement patients and 96.5% for knee replacement patients. This meant most patients had a good outcome which resulted in an overall improvement to their health.

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 was moving from paper to a digital consent record. This transition was expected to improve the quality of record keeping. Senior leaders said there was still work to be done to encourage some consultants to embed this in practice. Consent audits between May and August 2025 showed 94% compliance. This was an improvement on the previous quarters’ results between January and April 2025 showing 85% compliance. Leaders had acted on audit data to address areas for improvement with medical consultants. This focused on encouraging good quality documentation of whether alternative options were discussed and details of what patient education, or information about treatment was provided.

Staff understood how to protect patients from harm by raising concerns when there was any doubt about a patient's ability to make informed decisions. This process was supported by a standardised mental capacity assessment with input from a multidisciplinary team and senior leaders. Although this rarely occurred, staff and leaders were able to describe how to find relevant guidance and records. Patients were safeguarded from harm because staff recognised when patients' capacity was impaired and acted on this appropriately.