The Hampshire Clinic

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

This means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. However, the service did not ensure all staff had undertaken the appropriate level of safeguarding training according to their role and responsibilities.

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.

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.

The outpatients department reported 9 incidents between November 2024 to November 2025. These were all resolved with immediate action and were categorised as no or low harm incidents. There were no serious incidents requiring a patient safety investigation or disclosure of duty of candour. Organisational duty of candour is the legal requirement for healthcare services to be open and honest when an unexpected or unintended incident leads to serious harm or death. Additional learning had taken place when shortfalls in practice were identified. Staff understood how to report incidents when things did not occur as expected.

Leaders encouraged staff to attend safe space sessions held monthly. These were expected to be an open platform to encourage learning and discuss what went well or not.

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 involved all the necessary health and social care services to ensure patients had continuity of safe care, both within the service and post-discharge. There were safe systems for handover of patient information between in hospital teams, such as outpatients to surgery. This meant important safety information was shared with relevant teams at the right time as the patient progressed through their healthcare journey. When patients completed their care and treatment with the service, an electronic discharge summary was shared with the patients’ GP.

Between August and October 2025, there were 87 appointment cancellations in outpatients due to various leave arrangements. When this occurred, patients were informed by letter or email. Senior leaders confirmed there were some appointments that required rescheduling with alternative consultants and felt this was managed well with patients informed in advance.

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 were trained in safeguarding and could describe how to recognise signs of abuse. All staff directly employed by the service had completed safeguarding training to the level required for their role. Between January to November 2025, 1 safeguarding incident had occurred in Outpatients. Incident records showed staff had acted appropriately to escalate concerns to leaders. Patients were protected from risk of harm because early action enabled staff to organise additional support mechanisms in the community.

The director of clinical services was the safeguarding lead. As safeguarding lead, they had completed the higher level of safeguarding training for children and adults, as did the hospital director. This meant there was always someone available to provide support to staff for safeguarding concerns.

Educational safeguarding posters were secured in Outpatients rooms and corridors. Safeguarding newsletters were regularly circulated to encourage best practice and to recognise when things had gone well. However, some consultant doctors working under practicing privileges did not always have the expected level of safeguarding adults training in line with the central provider policy and national guidelines. The Intercollegiate document for adult safeguarding recommends all registered staff are required to train to a minimum of level 3 to ensure they have the relevant skills, knowledge, and competence to protect vulnerable adults. Under provider policy, consultant doctors were expected to

provide confirmation of their current and complete mandatory training records, at their primary site of employment. Records we reviewed, did not clearly demonstrate discussion of absent mandatory training records before practicing privileges were renewed. For example, some anonymised practicing privileges records showed some mandatory training, such as safeguarding adults' level 3 was not always clearly documented. When we raised concerns, senior leaders said they were assured consultants had the appropriate level of training, as they received copies of each consultant’s annual appraisal from their primary employment. This meant the responsible officer at their primary site of employment had approved consultant appraisals in line with NHS organisations. This included confirmation that consultants had completed safeguarding adults level 2 training

The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Leaders delivered monthly simulation training with scheduled staff attendance from all areas of the hospital. This meant staff were well practiced in managing emergencies when they occurred. There was 1 incident of patient deterioration in the outpatients setting in 2025. The incident record showed the patient had received timely and appropriate care with prompt transfer to the ward environment where they received additional treatment and monitoring.

The emergency trolley was shared between outpatients and the preoperative assessment department. Records showed staff had checked that the contents remained tagged and sealed daily and completed a full inventory monthly. When equipment was accessed due to an emergency, this was checked by staff before resealing. Leaders ensured all staff regularly took part in checks to ensure familiarity with the layout and contents. However, there was 1 piece of equipment located in a different area of the trolley to the documented checklist. When this was raised with leaders on the day of inspection, this was immediately corrected.

There was a holistic approach to ensure the environment supported patients and staff to manage risk together. There was clear signposting in corridors, clinic and consulting rooms for the locations of the nearest first aid, spillage kit and emergency trolley. This meant staff who did not routinely work in this location, were able to find emergency equipment quickly. Patient identification posters were present in corridors and clinic rooms. We observed consultations where staff undertook positive patient identification in line with best practice guidelines.

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.

During the onsite inspection, the service was in the process of renovating aged areas of the outpatient's department, such as the main corridor and physiotherapy reception. Areas were well maintained and equipment such as wheelchairs were stored safely. Staff used daily checklists to monitor and record whether clinic rooms had the right equipment and were fit for purpose before patients arrived for their appointments.

Equipment registers showed leaders had ensured maintenance and repairs mostly took place in a timely manner. Some blood pressure machines requiring yearly servicing had not been serviced in the expected timeframe. Although staff and leaders had identified this equipment in advance, the delay was due to external contractor provision in identifying and repairing the equipment. This had no impact on patient care or treatment.

Health and safety audit records for September 2025 showed the outpatients department was fully compliant in all areas, such as fire safety management. There were no areas for improvement noted by leaders.

However, the water safety group did not meet quarterly, in line with central provider policy. In 2025, only 2 meetings occurred. Senior leaders explained this was due to the absence of some essential staff. Mitigation actions included review of water safety as a standard agenda item in quarterly infection prevention and control meetings and responsive ad hoc safety meetings. This meant the service continued to effectively manage water safety despite gaps in the formal meeting process. Water sampling results in October 2025 showed low levels of legionella bacteria in 1 outpatient consulting room. Subsequent samples were tested at 3-week intervals and showed continued daily flushing had brought the levels of legionella to an acceptable level.

The inspection team observed a storeroom which contained hazardous items was accessible by patients and visitors from the main corridor. Although the room was labelled with a ‘Do not enter’ sign, access was not secure or locked. This room contained a secure cabinet with hazardous substances, sample collection boxes and a plaster saw. This was raised with leaders, and a digital lock was installed immediately.

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.

There were enough staff, with the appropriate training for their role, to deliver care and treatment. Staffing records for the outpatient's department between August and October 2025 showed staffing was always fulfilled above the level of demand. There was always a named member of the leadership team onsite to provide support and oversight if a registered nurse was not rostered. When the outpatient's department needed to use temporary staff, leaders used staff who were already familiar with the service. The department did not use agency staff.

Leaders received alerts to keep mandatory training up to date and this was reported in monthly clinical governance meetings. Mandatory training records covering whole hospital compliance, showed the overall training completion rate was 99% for permanent staff and 89% for temporary staff. However, adult basic life support training completion rates sat below the expected compliance rate for permanent staff at 87.5%. Also, there were some areas of mandatory training for temporary staff below the services’ expected compliance rates, such as fire safety workshop training at 63.6%, and basic life support at 62.5%. However, clinical governance records showed leaders did not utilise temporary staff if the individuals’ training compliance rate fell below 100%.

Senior leaders reviewed practicing privileges for consultant doctors once every 2 years. Senior leaders followed a standardised review process set by the central provider and used data and insight dashboards effectively to monitor and manage this process. At the time of the inspection, all consultant doctors had received their practicing privileges review in the expected timeframe.

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.

Staff ensured the equipment and environment were well maintained and clean. Disposable curtains used in clinical areas had been recently replaced according to the service’s policies. Records in treatment rooms showed cleaning occurred as planned at the end of each day. Wipeable clean furniture was present in all areas.

The inspection team saw posters for 5 moments for hand hygiene in various areas of the department. Staff used hand gel to decontaminate hands when entering and leaving clinical areas. Infection prevention and control displays showed the departments’ performance in audit areas such as cleanliness and hand hygiene. The cleanliness audit for October 2025 was 95%.

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.

Medicines were stored safely and access was well managed. Cupboards and rooms containing medicines and medical gas cylinders were secured when not in use. No controlled drugs were stored in outpatients' clinical areas. Sharps bins were safely managed and secured in line with national standards and guidelines. All sharps bins were recorded with complete and correct information for tracking and traceability purposes.

Records showed pharmacy staff checked the expiry date of all medicines monthly, as part of routine stock management. These were detailed and up to date, with 1 year of records immediately available for review. The inspection team reviewed a sample of the medicines stock in treatment rooms and these matched local records and stock levels.

Medicines were consistently dispensed safely. The service regularly reviewed the quality of record keeping for dispensed prescriptions (private and FP10). Medicines management audits for the outpatient's department showed 97% compliance between August and October 2025, above the 95% target.

The service had suitable arrangements to ensure staff had access to microbiologist support from the nearby NHS Trust. Decisions on antibiotics prescriptions were informed using a shared formulary with the NHS Trust, demonstrating consistency of approach.