The Hampshire Clinic

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained 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.

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.

Patients and their families shared positive feedback about personalised care. This included experiences where staff had looked after a patient’s relative who had become distressed when the patient attended their appointment. A carer shared feedback that staff had treated a patient with additional needs ‘exceptionally well.’

Systems supported staff to keep person centred care at the heart of patient care. When patients were booked for an outpatients’ appointment, patients were routinely asked about their communication and accessibility needs. When patients had more complex needs, staff and leaders made reasonable adjustments to support patients to access the care and treatment they needed.

Pre-operative assessments identified patients living with dementia or a learning disability. Staff told us the service had strict criteria which meant they rarely had patients with mental health needs or learning disabilities, however they occasionally admitted patients who were living with dementia. The service had a dementia lead who supported both patients and staff. They put plans in place to support safe care and treatment for patients with early onset dementia and who had been assessed as safe for surgery.

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.

Services worked together within the hospital to deliver joined up care. When patients moved from outpatient care to the surgical pathway and subsequently discharged, the physiotherapy service delivered joined up care across the patients’ care pathway. Although the physiotherapy service no longer had onsite access to a hydrotherapy pool, staff were able to clearly describe the referral pathway to nearby services, if patients needed this.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff ensured patients could obtain information about their appointments, treatment and how to complain. The service provided information in forms accessible to specific patient groups. This included adjustments for patients with visual impairment such as audio bookings, translation of leaflets into braille, chaperones to support movement around the hospital, longer appointment times and an advocate service if required.

The service followed the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Posters regarding AIS were present in reception areas. Staff recorded information about individuals’ communication needs and digital systems flagged this at various stages of the patient pathway. This included when patients needed to make a complaint or for incident investigation processes.

Leaders monitored compliance to AIS and made improvements when audits showed shortfalls. In January 2025, the overall AIS compliance was 77%. Leaders identified that staff did not know how to ask for information to be put into alternative formats such as audio or braille and staff were unable to explain how to ask for information to be translated from standard print to basic sign language format. By the end of May 2025, several improvements had been delivered, such as staff education on interpreting and translation services and guide dog training. The service had booked and utilised sign language and translation services 3 times between May to October 2025.

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.

Between October 2024 and October 2025, the hospital received 17 complaints which were all upheld or partially upheld. Complaints were mostly about communication, where patients were disappointed about outcomes of procedures or transparency of fees. Action and learning outcomes were generated from all complaints. Clinical governance meetings reviewed all complaints and shared learning from this. Patients were able to resolve their complaints with the hospital directly and did not need to be referred onto independent complaints investigators, such as the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service or the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

The most recent complaint was due to a gap in expectations, which led to a poor patient experience. Leaders reviewed care and treatment records and identified this was due to inconsistent communication between different healthcare professionals. Through open and honest communication, this was resolved with the patient.

Patient feedback information was available via QR codes present in reception areas. Reception staff made patients aware of this and offered to assist if needed. In outpatients areas, there were posters and booklets explaining how to raise a complaint.

The service routinely collected information about patient experience through a Friends and Family Test. Between August and October 2025, the overall patient satisfaction averaged 95.2% and scored above the national average for outpatients’ experience. Patients reported that appointments were easy to book and rearrange. Most patients waited between 1 week to 1 month for an appointment. The number of patients who had waited for more than 3 months improved from 1.7% to 0%. However, when clinics ran late, only 54% of patients reported they were informed of this. The service made improvements using patient feedback, including improvements for patient navigation and renovation of the outpatient's department which was in progress during the onsite inspection.

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.

The service used numerous initiatives to improve access for different patient groups. The outpatient's reception and toilets had been refurbished to improve wheelchair access and integrated hearing loop systems were installed.

In Patient Led Assessments of Care Environments (PLACE) audits, the service scored 100% in all outpatients areas. This meant staff and leaders could be assured the outpatients department was fit for purpose when considering the quality of the hospital environment for cleanliness, privacy, dementia, disability, and condition.

The central provider monitored inequalities highlighted by key reports such as the Safety Gap Report 2025, published by the National Patient Safety Commission. The organisational response included engagement with the Royal National Institute of Blind people (RNIB) to ensure information shared with blind and deaf patients was suitable for their needs.

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.

The patient experience survey included patient demographic information such as ethnicity, gender, age group, and long-term health conditions. This enabled leaders to analyse whether there were any apparent differences in satisfaction to address these. The central provider used feedback from patients who identified as being disabled and Healthwatch reports to inform the update of the privacy and dignity policy.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff involved patients with additional needs, along with their relatives or carers, in care planning and organised site visits and walk‑throughs to support this. We saw a positive example where the service had organised multidisciplinary team meetings with patients and their carers to ensure plans for care and treatment considered sensory and communication needs. This included reasonable adjustments for temperature regulation, noise management and familiar staff. There was a collective and collaborative effort to make the patient experience positive.

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.

Staff supported patients to make decisions about their care, treatment, and their future. Patients said the risks of surgery were explained well during their outpatients appointment. This supported patients to make well informed decisions about their care and treatment. Staff shared information with patients about what to expect on the day of surgery.

The service had formal arrangements in place to ensure patients who developed palliative care needs, would have these met by the local NHS hospital. There had been no referrals to the NHS palliative care team between August and October 2025.