Hey Baby 4D Dartford

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 systems were safe, people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, the service managed risk, the environment was well maintained, there service had enough qualified staff and infection control was managed well most of the time.

This is the first assessment for this service which registered with the CQC in 2021. This key question has been rated Good

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The service provided safe care and treatment staff completed holistic and timely risk assessments, and care was well planned. Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse and neglect. Sonographers had the right qualifications and were able to diagnose deviations from normal. Staff worked well together for the benefit of pregnant women and supported them to make informed decisions about their care.

However, we found some issues with out-of-date stock and lack of equipment and fire risk assessment checking. Although the provider was responsive and acted immediately when we raised concerns.

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 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.

Staff knew what incidents to report and how to report them. The service had an incident reporting process and staff could access incident reporting forms electronically if required.

The service had no recorded serious incidents in the last 12 months. However, staff were proactive and could describe where and how to report an incident and how to escalate to registered manager.

Staff understood the 'Duty of Candour'. They were open and transparent and knew how to give women and families a full explanation if things went wrong.

The manager provided staff with feedback from an investigation or complaints when required. This was a small service with 4 staff therefore staff had ease of access to feedback, incidents were rare and none were reported during the inspection timeframe.

There was evidence that changes had been made because of feedback. For example, making sure that the NHS received and followed up referrals from the provider. Staff had liaised with the NHS trust and established a generic referrals email account.

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.

The service offered a wide range of diagnostic and screening services, which included but were not limited to early reassurance scans, wellbeing, gender scans and late reassurance scans. The service also offered non-invasive prenatal testing, which is a simple blood test to detect congenital abnormalities in the fetus DNA.

The service’s referral processes ensured that all essential information about the woman was received to determine if their needs could safely be met. Women completed digital risk assessment forms prior to their appointment which included information about their last monthly period (LMP). When they arrived for their appointment, the sonographer would review the information and discuss expectations.

Staff knew when and how to make a referral. If they had concerns like ectopic pregnancy, sonographers completed an NHS e-referral to the local NHS trust. Which was then followed up with the woman to make sure they had been contacted by the NHS trusts Early Pregnancy Unit (EPU).

Leaders liaised with the local NHS trust to ensure easy access for women who required a referral in the event of a deviation from normal diagnosis. The local NHS trust confirmed that the service made appropriate referrals.

The service offered NIPT (Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing) a safe blood test, performed from 10 weeks, that screens for chromosomal abnormalities by analysing baby DNA in maternal blood. It primarily checks for Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome), Trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), and Trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome) with high accuracy (over 99% for Downs syndrome). Staff followed the NIPT standard operating procedure which clearly described the process although the document was not dated.

The service offered some women transvaginal scans if an abdominal scan did not detect a fetus or fetal heart. The manager and sonographer described when and why a transvaginal scan was offered this was to ensure safe practice rule out ectopic pregnancy and to offer maternal reassurance. However, the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Transvaginal Scans was not available during our assessment. We asked the manager to provide a copy which they did the day following assessment. The SOP was easy to follow but it was not dated .

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, knew how to make a safeguarding alert, and did that when appropriate. Administrative staff completed level 2 safeguarding, and the sonographer completed level 3 safeguarding training.

Staff had access to a safeguarding standard operating procedure which listed the contact details of the local authority and local police.

Staff could give examples of how to protect women from harassment and discrimination, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Staff told us that they had not made any safeguarding referrals during the reporting period April 2025 to March 2026.

Staff knew how to identify adults and children at risk of, or suffering, significant harm. This included working in partnership with other agencies.

Staff followed safe procedures for children visiting the service.

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.

Staff communicated with women so that they understood their care and treatment, including finding effective ways to communicate with women who may have communication difficulties. However, the service did not have a standardised process for using interpreting services. Staff told us that this was an independent service and most people booked online therefore the issue of language barrier had not occurred.

Women who requested NIPT (Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing) were given written information about the screening and diagnosis and were given verbal information and risk assessed during their visit. The blood test was sent to a third-party organisation for screening and results were usually available within 5-7 working days. If women had positive results the sonographers called the women and explained the results in detail, provided counselling and made the appropriate referrals to an obstetric consultant.

Staff communicated the results via telephone and followed this up with a written copy of the report sent via email. In cases where a congenital abnormalities or chromosomal aneuploidy was identified, the sonographer contacted the mother to explain the findings in a sensitive and clear manner. Once the woman was counselled by the provider, consent was gained to refer the mother to an external genetic counsellor for further support. The guidance and the third-party service that completed the blood tests provided this additional support at no extra cost.

Staff enabled women to give feedback on the service they received. For example, via women feedback forms which contained quick response (QR) codes or online review platforms.

Staff enabled women to make advanced decisions about their care via the electronic booking system and during consultation.

Staff ensured that women could access chaperones if needed. However, most women were accompanied by their partner or family who were invited into the imaging room.

The service did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Service equipment had not received Portable Appliance Testing (PAT) prior to installation, although the equipment like the scanning machine, photocopier and computers appeared in good working order. We raised this with the registered manager who responded by booking PAT testing services during our visit. After the inspection the provider sent evidence of PAT testing certificates.

The services fire risk assessment was out of date: it was dated June 2021, which meant the provider could not be assured that fire hazards had been identified. We raised this with the manager who responded promptly and booked a fire risk assessment with a third-party company for the day following inspection to mitigate the potential risk. After the inspection the manager provided evidence of the fire risk assessment and confirmed that the third-party company had not raised any concerns about the safety of the premises.

We found out of date fire extinguishers within the premises and there was no standardised schedule for checking the fire extinguishers. We raised this with the registered manager who was unsure who was responsible for servicing the fire extinguishers as the premises was within a large shopping precent. The registered manager immediately ordered replacements and provided evidence when these were delivered.

We found that single use items in the first aid kit were out of date and there was no systematic checking of the contents. We raised this with the manager who immediately ordered a new up to date first aid kit and implemented a system to check the contents monthly.

Sharps bins used to dispose of needles used for blood test were stored in a lockable cupboard within the scanning room. However, we found the bins did not have a ‘date open’ recorded. We raised this with the manager who advised that sharps bins were provided by a third-party organisation who delivered them empty and picked them up when they were full after staff had locked them. The registered manager advised the sonographer to check the date opened and document the date in future.

However, the premises were easily accessible and well maintained. The premises was on the ground floor of a large shopping precinct and there was plenty of parking. The waiting area was large with wipe clean chairs. There were soft toys displayed in the shop window and a sign requesting that parents do not allow children to touch them because of infection prevention control.

Staff stored cleaning and hazardous products in a locked cupboard which was aligned to ‘Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) regulations (2002)

The reception desk was well maintained and in clear line of site sight to women. The scanning room was large and well equipped.

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.

Managers calculated the number of staff required to cover the service. This was a small independent service which employed 4 staff in total which included the registered manager, 2 reception staff, and one whole time equivalent (WTE) sonographer. There was minimal staff turnover during the reporting period. Staff sickness was minimal, staff told us they rarely went sick but in the event of sickness they would inform the registered manager who would act to cover staff.

The service did not have any current vacancies.

When necessary, managers deployed agency staff to maintain safe staffing levels. This was during sickness or annual leave.

When agency staff were used, those staff received an induction and were familiar with the area. The service used accessed agency staff who were known to the service.

Staff received mandatory training and were up to date. Training records, held on a training matrix, showed that all three staff had completed appropriate courses, including basic life support, first aid, safeguarding, information governance, moving and handling, infection prevention and control, hand hygiene and fire safety. Training was suitable for the needs pregnant women.

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. They did not always detect and control the risk of it spreading or share concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

All ward areas were clean, had required furnishings and were well-maintained. The sonographer described in detail how they cleaned the vaginal probe and single use sheaths were visible within the scan room. However, we found that the cleaning schedule lacked details about date checking of single use items.

We found that the sonographer had been using the out-of-date decontamination foam for 2 weeks since the last container had been emptied. We highlighted this to the registered manager who ordered new foam immediately. The sonographer described how they cleaned the probe with antimicrobial cleaning wipes and covered the probe with a single use sheath prior to each procedure.

Cleaning records were up to date and demonstrated that areas were cleaned regularly. However, it did not include the checking of stock like single use items or decontamination products.

Staff adhered to infection control principles, including handwashing.

Pregnant women were asked to complete a basic health check form on arrival to the service to establish if they had been in close contact with infectious illness. This was implemented because of Covid 19.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Safe key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.