Window to the Womb Portsmouth

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

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

A pre-scan questionnaire was given to women on arrival to the clinic, this questionnaire did not ask women about additional support needs ensuring their experience was planned and managed uniquely for them. The service’s policy guidance stated that women who were deaf or with a hearing impairment could be supported through British Sign Language (BSL) Interpretation by prior arrangement. Without disclosure of these needs before the appointment, the service could not reasonably ensure all required support was set up in a timely manner. This limited the services ability to plan appropriate adjustments in advance. This also meant the service was unable to anticipate certain individual needs prior to attendance for women with mental health needs, autistic people and people with a learning disability. Staff explained that patients with additional needs were often accompanied by carers or chaperones, which reduced the immediate need for internal adjustments. However, this placed the burden of additional support on the women.

Leaflets promoting mental health and addressing anxiety were readily available. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of reviewing not only the progress of pregnancies but also identifying and referring any potential gynaecological concerns.

The service did not provide leaflets in the clinic in other languages, but translated leaflets were available on the services website. This relied-on women accessing information independently before attending.

We scored the service as 3. 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 website contained clear and accessible information about the packages available, including transparent pricing. It also included guidance for prospective patients on what to do before arriving at the clinic, what to expect on arrival, and details about the scan process. Frequently asked questions were also available on the website to support patient understanding.

Staff coordinated appointment schedules to ensure scans did not take place too close together.

The clinic provided a spacious waiting area that offered a comfortable and suitable environment for patients. The service supplied free feminine hygiene products and nappies, and accessible toilets and baby-changing facilities were available onsite. The clinic was located close to public transport links, supporting ease of access. In addition, the electronic booking system was monitored daily, offering patients the flexibility to book appointments online via a 24/7 platform or by contacting the clinic directly.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service offered an online booking system specifically designed to support people whose first language was not English. We saw that staff kept carers and families regularly informed of the patient’s progress while they waited in the reception area. Team meetings were used to routinely share information on performance, safety incidents, audits, and complaints. Policies and guidelines were accessible in both paper and electronic formats, and all paper records were stored securely.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

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.

Managers investigated complaints and actively identified themes and trends. The clinic Where issues were identifies, managers acknowledged the feedback and contacted people to seek resolution.

The service received a total of 12 complaints from Apil 2024 to November 2025.The service told us that they allowed 21 days to resolve a complaint, however the complaint log showed that it was quicker than this. The service apologised when complaints were made and offered further services or compensation. Main theme is people being unhappy with quality of images or the service that was provided. Others include feeling rushed/not looked after well, inappropriate revealing of gender when person wanted this secret, and incorrect suggestion to patient that they had miscarried - and later confirmed by hospital to not be the case.

The services complaints policy also included contact details for an independent third-party organisation, allowing patients to escalate concerns if they remained dissatisfied with the services response. This aligned with best practice for complaints escalation within independent healthcare services. Managers confirmed, and we saw evidence, that the service used the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) as its Alternative Dispute Resolution provider with complaints submitted through the CEDR portal where required.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Patients booked their appointments online using the clinic’s website on a date and time that best suited them, and they would self-refer to the service. There was an option for patients to book same-day appointments online, therefore ensuring a range of flexibility with appointment times.

The clinic environment supported accessibility as all areas were step-free. Staff completed training in autism, learning disabilities and supporting women with mental health needs. This training included communication techniques and helped staff understand how these conditions could affect a person’s pregnancy experience.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

All people we spoke with said overall their experience was positive, and they understood potential outcomes before attending the service. People could access the service when they needed it. They received the right care and their results promptly. Staff facilitated same day appointments and provided direct telephone access to the clinic when it was not open to the public.

All staff completed mandatory training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights. The service also offered specific training to raise staff awareness of LGBTQ+ needs and how to best support this patient group.

However, whilst staff were appropriately trained, information about patients’ individual characteristics and needs was only identified at the time of the appointment. This limited the services ability to make reasonable adjustments in advance or plan additional support ahead of attendance.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The service focused on providing reassurance and emotional support to people at key stages of their pregnancy journey. Although the service did not offer ongoing or long-term support following pregnancy, sonographers took the time to signpost people to appropriate external services that could meet their individual needs.

The service demonstrated a compassionate and personalised approach to care. Many people chose to remain in contact with the clinic after their appointments and shared photographs of their babies with staff. This reflected strong rapport with staff and patients using the service.

The service also showed sensitivity and respect when supporting those who had experienced pregnancy loss. A designated quiet room was available for those needing a private space.