Window to the Womb Portsmouth

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, and respect. Staff used online reviews to gather feedback from people. Many positive reviews reflected the survey findings, highlighting that staff ensure women felt comfortable and had access to water whilst waiting. Feedback from people who used the service consistently described staff as caring and friendly. Comments included, “Really brilliant service. All staff were really lovely and professional! Would 100% recommend! Thank you for making the experience so easy and memorable”

We reviewed service user feedback from the past year. Women completed surveys about the service, and most responses were positive. A total of 120 reviews were received: 93 out of 120 rated the service as 5 (highest score), while 2 out of the 120 rated the service as 1 (lowest score). The women who gave a score of 3 reported that they did not get the photos they wanted and it was too expensive. We also saw documentation that showed how women were always advised that although the service aimed to produce clear images, this was not always possible.

Staff used the clinic space effectively to support women when delivering sensitive or upsetting information. A quiet room was available to provide privacy and emotional support. Staff completed training on this and were able to give us examples of when they had to have difficult conversations.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

The service did not routinely gather information about women’s individual needs at the point of booking appointments, which meant people could not always be supported proactively in relation to their individual needs when they attended their appointment. Managers told us they expected women to contact the service before their appointment to inform staff of any additional requirement, such as language support, communication adjustments or access need. However, this approach placed responsibility on women rather than ensuring the service proactively identified and planned for reasonable adjustments. Also, there was a risk that some women’s needs may not have been fully recognised or met in a timely way, particularly for those who may find it difficult to communicate their needs.

All staff completed equality and diversity training, supporting care delivery in line with the provider’s diversity policy. Policies were set up to ensure people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010) received carefree from bias.

The service adjusted for women who had a disability or mobility needs, for example by ensuring the clinic was easily accessible with step-free access.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service did not consistently meet the information and communication needs of patients with a disability and sensory loss. Staff did not always apply the policy for supporting patients with additional communication needs, and the service had no specific provisions for people with visual and hearing impairments.

However, the service provided patients and promoted wellbeing by signposting to local NHS trusts, if patients had any concerns and needed further advice. Whilst products were displayed at the clinic entrance, we did not observe staff applying sales pressure on any of the patients and families.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service had a clear emergency policy that set out the actions staff must take in emergency situations, including contacting an ambulance service for obstetric emergencies and suspected ectopic pregnancies. Staff received appropriate training, including bi-annually training completed during team meetings to help all staff recognise signs of patient deterioration.

When scans indicated abnormal findings, the sonographer explained the results to the woman and her family in the scan room and arranged referrals to NHS services. Staff told us and we saw that they offered follow-up contact to check on the wellbeing of the parents. Patients were asked if they wished to receive this follow-up, and staff reported that most agreed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt respected, supported, and valued. They worked collaboratively to discuss concerns, including those arising within the sonography team. The service encouraged staff to raise issues openly and supported a culture of shared problem solving.

The registered manager conducted informal wellbeing check ins within the team and provided staff with a wellbeing survey. We saw the survey completed in March 2025 and it was 100% positive with no actionable points. Staff rated their overall wellbeing as excellent and respected they “rarely” or “never” felt stressed at work. Managers told us that the staff survey over the past couple of years has been mainly positive with no actionable points. Staff described manageable workloads and a collaborative team culture. Training and support were discussed weekly, and daily handovers included team briefs and shared learning. We saw evidence that staff received regular appraisals and ongoing communication from managers.

Staff had access to resources and facilities to support safe working, break spaces and access to food and drink outside normal working hours.