Peninsula Hub Also known as Peninsula Ultrasound Limited

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 means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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 looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

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.

Description: We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

3. 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.

We saw staff took the time to interact with people who used the service in a respectful and considerate way and gave them all the time they needed to understand information provided.

Staff ensured when intimate personal care and support was given by a member of the opposite sex, service users were offered the option of a chaperone. Staff ensured, where possible, that chaperones were the same gender as the service user.

Service users were able to speak to the sonographer without being overheard and there were plenty of additional rooms and space where sensitive conversations could be held if needed or requested. This included if a patient became distressed.

Staff responded in a compassionate, timely, and appropriate way when people experienced physical pain, discomfort or emotional distress.

Staff were compassionate and sensitive in their response to patients who might be frightened, confused or phobic about medical procedures or any aspect of their care. Patients we spoke with told us they felt seen and had things explained in a way they understood.

People were given appropriate and timely support and information to cope emotionally with their care, treatment or condition and were advised how to find other support services, such as linking in with support services based at the local NHS trust.

Staff understood and respected the personal, cultural, social and religious needs of people and this information was recorded and shared as needed. For example, use of pronouns and preferred names was some of the information recorded.

Staff members displayed understanding and a non-judgemental attitude towards (or when talking about) patients who had mental health, living with learning disabilities, autism or dementia diagnoses. Staff shared their own experience of loved ones living with some of these conditions which they told us helped them shape how they spoke to people in similar circumstances.

The service utilised patient surveys, and questions were sufficiently open ended to allow people to express themselves. A selection of feedback provided showed patients were very happy with their care. For example, patients described the service as “Efficient, friendly and quick”, “Everything was excellent” and “Everything was explained and clear with empathy and kindness”.

Description: We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff identified and met the information and communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss. Services were delivered, made accessible and coordinated to take account of the needs of different people, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. However, the layout of the building was not accessible to wheelchair users or non-ambulant patients. Managers were working with the local Integrated Care Board (ICB) to ensure only patients who could safely transfer to the ultrasound beds were referred for scanning at this location.

Staff made reasonable adjustments so people with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others. Although physical adjustments were limited due to the space constraints of clinics.

Staff worked across services to coordinate people's involvement with families and carers and arrange appointments for the same day if possible.

Staff communicated with people, so they understood their care, treatment and condition and any advice given. Patients were clear staff communicated with them in a way they understood.

Staff sought accessible ways to communicate with people including the use of translation where a patients’ first language was not English. However, written information was not available in other languages. Instead, a series of phone calls were arranged between the service and a translator who explained everything in a pre-examination call and on the day of the examination, via the patient’s own mobile phone.

Description: We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and well-being.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

3. We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well-being.

People were empowered and supported, where necessary, to use and link with support networks and patients were signposted to various support groups.

Staff made sure people who used services and those close to them were able to find further information or ask questions about their care and treatment.

Appointments were appropriately timed and staff told us they felt they had time to speak with patients and answer any questions. All patients received written information about when they would get their results and what to do if they had any questions or concerns following their examination. Staff had access to communication aids to help patients.

Imaging and treatment options were discussed with people, and they were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process.

Support with transport was available to service users with mobility issues although the service could not universally accept all physically disabled patients due to limitations in the size of the scan rooms and waiting area.

Patients told us they felt listened to, respected and had their views considered. However, a small number of patients reported staff could at times appear distant or overly task-focused during examinations. In response, the service implemented additional training and discussion at staff meetings, with a focus on reinforcing patient-centred communication, empathy, and emotional support.

Description: We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

3. 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.

Following their tests, service users understood how and when they would receive their test results and they had received copies of letters sent between the hospital and their GP. Service users described knowing who to contact if they were worried about anything following their scan or procedure.

In areas where ethnic minority groups formed a significant proportion of the local population, there were processes to aid verbal translation, but there was no access to any written information or resources.

Where people’s needs and choices were not being met, this was identified and used to inform how services were improved and developed. For example, a patient fed back there was no information available on the website regarding bus routes. In response, the service updated information to include full details of the new bus route, including stop locations and access information.

The service was clearly signposted on the industrial estate where it was located and there was ample free parking.

Description: We care about and promote the well-being of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

Quality Statement Score: Your judgement of the quality and safety of the topic area

2. We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always care about and promote the well-being of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Relationships between staff were not always cooperative, supportive and appreciative. Staff and teams worked collaboratively, shared responsibility but did not always resolve conflict quickly and constructively. Some staff reported poor mental health and a fear of reprisal or retribution if they attempted to leave the service within a specified time frame and had turned down job offers as a result. Some staff were actively trying to leave the service, although we were told of another staff member trying to return to the service.

Not all staff roles were treated with respect and supported. A small number of staff were in discussions with trade unions regarding pre-employment terms and conditions at the time of our inspection.

Managers were aware of a national shortage of some staffing groups and planned their staffing to mitigate these risks. They were actively engaged in training staff in house alongside staff undertaking external university qualifications. Staff were liable for repayment of fees for such training if they left the service within 3 years, however staff reported being unaware of other costs for in-house training and traveling expenses, which had been presented to staff who had sought to leave the service.

Staff were engaged but did not always feel their views were reflected in the planning and delivery of services and in shaping the culture. For example, staff had raised concerns about the cleaning process for the transvaginal probes, which had been dismissed.

There was a monthly managers meeting and monthly staff meetings and minutes were of good quality.

We saw senior staff were actively involved in the design of the planned new layout of the service to expand administrative facilities.

The service undertook an annual staff survey which showed 89% of staff would recommend the service as a place to work. The survey identified areas for improvement including increasing leadership visibility, improving communication processes using digital systems and staff meetings, expanding 1-to-1 engagement and developing a staff portal to improve transparency, reporting, and operational efficiency. However, we did not see evidence to support any of these initiatives were yet embedded and documents submitted were created after our initial inspection.

Staff surveys were used to capture open responses, and that latest survey from July 2025 showed good support for local managers and teams.

The service offered staff incentives and recognition through funded Christmas events, social events, meals during meetings, recognition awards, and long service awards.

Staff could request flexible working arrangements including compressed weeks, part-time roles, phased return-to-work support, and structured rotas supporting breaks and manageable workloads.

Where possible staff did not work alone. In all areas we visited, staff worked as a team. Staff felt the work booked for each scanner was appropriate and allowed time to carry out any pre-scan information checking, but there was no programme of recommended daily quality assurance checks factored into work lists. Staff told us they had enough time to scan patients.