- Independent hospital
Peninsula Hub Also known as Peninsula Ultrasound Limited
Assessment report published 22 May 2026
Contents
Ratings - Diagnostic and screening services
Our view of the service
The date of assessment: 28 January 2026
We conducted a full comprehensive assessment due to the length of time which had elapsed since the previous assessment under the old provider.
Safe:
The safety of the service required improvement. While some safe practices were in place, there were notable and repeated gaps across several areas which meant the service could not consistently assure safe care.
Learning culture was not sufficiently developed. Although incident trends were monitored, incidents were not consistently reported to external bodies as required. Some reviews did not routinely involve all relevant staff or partners with limiting shared learning.
Risk assessments were not always comprehensive and unsuitable referrals continued due to unclear criteria. The service did not have access to a medical physics expert for equipment‑related risks.
Although safeguarding concerns were escalated appropriately, not all staff were trained to the correct level, including the safeguarding lead.
Adjustments were made for people with communication needs, but the physical layout restricted accessibility. Referral criteria were poorly communicated, resulting in unsafe situations such as a patient attending with an almost empty oxygen cylinder and the service had no oxygen to give the patient if it ran out.
The absence of a reception desk created confusion and patients often waited until a member of staff came out of an examination room to check in. There was a tablet to check in, but some patients told us this was not obvious on arrival. Equipment was maintained but not quality‑assured, and waste disposal practices did not meet NHS requirements. Electrical equipment safety testing was overdue.
Staffing levels were adequate, however, appraisals were not routinely completed. Routine equipment checks were not undertaken, though staff were appropriately supervised and supported in training roles. Not all staff had undertaken the mandatory training needed to carry out their roles.
High‑level disinfection of transvaginal probes was not being carried out, probe traceability was absent, and there were no cleanliness or hand hygiene audits. Staff did not always follow IPC dress code standards, creating avoidable risk.
Effective:
Overall, the service was effective. Care and treatment were delivered in line with legislation, recognised standards and evidence-based guidance. People’s needs were assessed appropriately, and staff worked across teams and services to ensure care was coordinated and person-centred based guidance.
Staff assessed physical, mental and communication needs and made reasonable adjustments. People were supported through referral and after their procedure and understood when and how they would receive their results.
Care followed national guidance, including NICE. Staff identified vulnerable patients and ensured any special preparation was carried out. Staff across organisations contributed to the planning and delivering of care.
Teams worked well together and ensured people did not need to repeat information unnecessarily. Adjustments were made for those needing additional support. Reporting turnaround times were routinely monitored.
The service supported people to understand their health and manage their wellbeing. Patients reported they felt informed after their scans.
Outcomes were monitored effectively. Audit processes, benchmarking, peer review supported continuous improvement. Learning from audits led to action.
Consent processes were robust. Staff followed legislation and national guidance, explained procedures clearly. People were supported to make informed choices. Capacity concerns were escalated appropriately, and staff were aware of Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) documentation.
Caring:
The service consistently delivered compassionate and respectful care. Staff interacted with people in a considerate manner. Patient feedback was highly positive, reflecting kindness, empathy and clear communication.
People were treated as individuals, with staff recognising cultural, social and communication needs. Reasonable adjustments were made wherever possible.
The service promoted independence and supported people to make informed decisions. Appointments allowed adequate time for discussion, written information was provided, and communication aids were available. People could choose from multiple locations, and same‑day appointments were sometimes available.
Workforce wellbeing required improvement. Staff did not always feel supported, and concerns were not always acted upon. Some staff reported poor morale and fear of reprisal. While teamwork was generally good and workloads manageable, action following staff survey findings was limited.
Responsive:
The service organised care to meet the needs of the local population and placed people at the centre of decisions about their treatment. Staff coordinated appointments to reduce duplication, involved families and carers appropriately.
People could generally access care at times that suited them, with services operating six days a week. However, the clinic layout limited access for non-ambulant patients.
Feedback was actively encouraged and used to improve the service. Staff worked collaboratively with external partners to respond to community needs. Complaints were welcomed as opportunities for learning although complaint investigations were often not comprehensive.
Information was provided before and after appointments, but written materials were available only in English, limiting accessibility. Translation support was available by phone.
Well-led:
Leadership and governance required significant improvement. The service did not have a clear, shared vision or culture and staff did not always feel supported or valued. While a strategic plan and partnership working secured funding and future service expansion, many staff reported low morale, fear of reprisals, and concerns that their professional clinical judgement was challenged by nonclinical managers. Staff well being was not consistently prioritised clinical managers.
Leaders were not always visible or equipped with the skills and oversight needed to ensure safe, high-quality care. Recruitment and employment checks were incomplete, with significant gaps in personnel files and no appraisals since 2024. Mandatory training oversight was poor and lacked supporting evidence.
Freedom to speak up arrangements were weak. There was no Freedom to Speak Up Guardian, and although staff raised concerns, they did not always feel protected or listened to.
Equality, diversity and inclusion were valued, and some teams engaged well in service planning.
Governance systems were not effective. There were insufficient structures, audits and accountability mechanisms to provide assurance of safety and performance. Risk registers existed but did not consistently drive improvement.
Partnership working showed mixed effectiveness. While relationships with the integrated care board (ICB) were positive, not all partners were consistently involved in incident reviews. A serious incident highlighted failures in external communication, prompting changes to prevent recurrence.
Continuous improvement was not embedded. There were no plans for external accreditation, and innovation and quality improvement activities were limited.
We rated the service as Requires Improvement. We found 2 breaches of the regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and governance.
We have requested an action plan, which will be requested upon publication of the final report.
People's experience of this service
Patients and any family or carers with them were all positive about the staff treating them with warmth and kindness and providing effective care and treatment. They said they were seen quickly but the lack of a reception desk confused some people and patients often waited until a member of staff came out of an examination room to check in.
Records showed people were given the tests they needed promptly, and they felt staff were on hand if they needed them for help or support. People said they did not feel anxious about raising concerns.
Patients were very positive about the choice of locations as the service also provided smaller clinics across Cornwall which patients could elect to attend.
Some patients reported transport was an issue as the clinic was in a rural location. However, there was a large, free on-site car park with plenty of disabled parking.