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 as 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 told us their needs and preferences were taken into account. The service used patient surveys and held regular patient experience groups to listen to the views of patients and used the feedback to make improvements. Patients gave positive feedback about how they were treated by all staff groups including receptionists, porters, nursing and medical staff.

Staff told us they completed risk assessments and person-centred care plans were put in place where risks were identified. They were regularly reviewed and discussed with patients to enable improvements or changes to their plan of care. Care records showed person-centred care plans that took into account and reflected people’s individual needs and preferences.

We observed positive interactions between staff and patients. We saw staff understood their needs and provided appropriate care and treatment.

Staff received mandatory training in equality and diversity, dementia awareness, learning disabilities and autism. Records showed compliance was above the target for all staff groups.

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.

Staff told us how they made reasonable adjustments for patients based on their specific needs. This included the allocation of extra time in the anaesthetic room if a patient was autistic or was very anxious about the procedure. This was identified at the preoperative assessment stage and further questions were asked about what the patient needed.

Staff described meetings to plan and prepare for any reasonable adjustments that patients required.

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.

The service planned and provided care in a way that met the needs of people and the local communities. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

On arrival, patients were met in reception, brought to the ward and shown to their room. Patients were informed of what to expect and how long their stay would be by the nursing teams.

Patients spoke positively about care being well co-ordinated and said they felt listened to and valued. They told us staff had involved them throughout the care pathway from the referral and initial pre-operative assessment to post surgery follow up appointments.

They told us they had been given options regarding their treatment and had specifically chosen this provider. Staff told us they received all the information from pre-operative assessments to plan patients care and treatment. They said they prepared equipment, consumable items and medicines for each person before their scheduled procedures.

The service had daily safety meetings with staff across the service to discuss patients ongoing care and treatment. Pre-operative assessment multidisciplinary team meetings took place to discuss complex cases before decisions were made about suitability for surgery.

Feedback from stakeholders, such as the partnering NHS hospital was positive. They told us the service engaged well in planned care partnership meetings to plan and deliver patients care and treatment.

Approximately 37% of patients were NHS funded and 63% were privately insured or self-paying. Referrals into the service came from GP’s or inter-provider transfers from the partnering NHS hospital. Senior leaders told us how they worked proactively with system partners to sustain NHS partnerships and contribute to the overall NHS elective recovery plan. The hospital’s elective surgical activity helped support the capacity and waiting lists of the local NHS hospital.

The service reported and monitored themes for surgical procedure cancellations and took actions to reduce cancellation rates.

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

Patient told us staff provided them with the necessary information about their care and treatment. They told us they shared information clearly and answered any questions they had.

Information leaflets about the services were readily available in all the areas we visited. Staff told us they could provide information in different languages or other accessible formats if needed.

Staff had access to interpreters over a phone line if required and gave examples of a time when other staff members were used to support translation where English was not the primary language spoken by the patient.

The service had ‘easy read’ versions of discharge information and hospital passports used large font and pictures. The hospital passports recorded important information about the patient so staff could support them in the best way possible. It included information such as anxieties, likes and dislikes, interests and preferred ways to communicate.

Staff told us they received training in information governance and confidentiality. They showed us how they could easily access information such as care records, policies and guidance relevant to their role. Information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records. We saw patient records were kept in a locked office area.

The service had an electronic performance dashboard which included information around clinical indicators such as patient safety, incidents and complaints. We observed that information on service performance and key risks were shared with staff through team meetings and emails. The electronic system allowed the service to benchmark against the other provider hospitals.

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.

We saw posters and leaflets with QR codes throughout the service asking for people to give feedback. We also saw leaflets on how to make a complaint in the reception area.

Patient feedback was very positive about their overall treatment journey. Staff said they encouraged people to provide feedback about the care and treatment they received.

The service reviewed patient feedback and complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff told us, and we saw, information about complaints was discussed during daily huddles and routine staff meetings.

We observed a range of meeting minutes that had complaints on the agenda including ward and theatre meetings, clinical governance and Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) meetings. The provider’s complaints policy provided guidance on how staff should handle complaints. This included the process to follow for unresolved complaints and signposted to external organisations such as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (for NHS patients) and the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service (ISCAS) for private funded patients.

Managers reviewed complaints, compliments and feedback to aid learning and improvement. The main themes for complaints were delays/cancellations and post operative complications.

Compliments and cards from patients were displayed throughout the departments.

The views of patients were listened to and considered through participation groups or surveys. The service used the results to make changes and improvements to patient care and safety.

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 made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients told us they received treatment in a prompt and timely manner and did not experience long waits when they arrived for their treatment. Patients had an initial consultation to determine whether they needed surgery, followed by a pre-operative assessment. Staff told us they planned patients care and treatment in advance so they did not experience delays in their treatment.

Services were designed to make them accessible and timely for people who were most likely to have difficulty accessing care. The service had a dementia strategy, a dementia lead and all eligible staff had completed dementia and learning disability/autism training.

The service had an inclusion and exclusion criteria and patients admitted for treatment were generally healthy or suffered from mild systemic disease and were considered to have a low risk of developing complications during treatment.

Managers told us the service had sufficient capacity to meet peoples’ needs. Flow was monitored daily to minimise any delays to patients care and treatment.

The service monitored waiting times from referral and made sure people could access services promptly when needed. Staff monitored non-attendance and cancellations. They ensured any treatments were rearranged within 28 days.

The service had processes to identify any barriers that could disadvantage different groups of people using their service. Actions had been taken to address barriers and improve patient experience. This included improved accessibility to interpretation and translation services for patients whose primary language was not English.

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.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Patient satisfaction audit data showed the hospital was consistently performing in line with other Circle hospital sites across all domains.

Staff were able to give examples of how they respected the individual wishes of people with people with communication or language needs and protected characteristics. Patients told us their needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. The provider’s equality and diversity policy outlined the processes for equal opportunities including how staff ensured they did not discriminate. This included on the grounds of protected characteristics under the Equality Act, when making care and treatment decisions.

Data concerning incidents, complaints and treatment outcomes did not identify any disparity in care or adverse outcomes or inequalities for people with protected characteristics.

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.

Patients told us the staff had discussed their long-term care and treatment plans with them, and their preferences had been taken into account.

Staff compiled discharge information collaboratively with patients to record information about the care and treatment received and future information such as medication and follow up appointments.

Patients told us they had been given advice and information on how to manage at home after surgery.

Physiotherapists were involved from the earliest stage to proactively work with patients for the best outcomes.

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.