Peninsula Hub Also known as Peninsula Ultrasound Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

Assessing Needs

Description: We maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them.

Staff made reasonable adjustments so people with a disability could access and use services on an equal basis to others. However, due to the size of the scan rooms, non-ambulant patients could not be accommodated.

Support with transport was available to service users with mobility issues, including hospital transport which staff told us could be challenging if patients using transport were booked on later lists. Managers were trying to remove the service as an option for transport patients as there were no facilities to keep patients safe if they had to wait for transport.

People were supported during referral, transfer between services and following their examinations or procedures. Patient we spoke to told us they were all made aware of how and when they would receive their results. In most cases, results went back directly to the GP or hospital. Private patient who self-referred to the service were given their results with the GP copied in if they wished.

Staff worked across services to coordinate people's care and treatment. Administrative staff cleansed lists to ensure patients did not have multiple examinations requested or multiple appointments for the same examination. A list was produced daily of any patients identified so the administrative team could investigate further and modify any appointments if necessary.

Staff identified vulnerable patients, such as diabetic patients, or frail patients that required fasting or drinking before treatment.

Description: We plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

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 planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Summarise your findings here using the topics below:

Staff assessed patient’s physical, mental health and social needs, and their care, was delivered in line with legislation, standards and evidence-based guidance, including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) .

By using a clinical governance group, the service ensured it identified and implemented relevant best practice and guidance. The service audited their practice locally and identified action points which was supported by discussions recorded in clinical governance meeting minutes.

The service participated in national bench-marking clinical audits, for example, NHS England targets for reporting on scans and x-rays. Compliance against this was audited and data submitted for January 2026 showed 96.6% of reports were available within 24 hours, 97% of reports were available within 5 days. The small proportion of reports exceeding 24 hours reflected clinical governance processes where additional time was required to obtain second opinions, clarify findings, or seek consultant radiologist input.

All necessary staff, including those in different teams, services and organisations, were involved in assessing, planning and delivering care and treatment. For example, the service had been asked by the local integrated care board (ICB), to help support the post-menopausal bleeding service by holding 3 scanning lists per week at the Peninsula hub.

Description: We work effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only need to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they move between different services.

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 worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Relevant teams, services and organisations were involved in coordinating people’s care. Staff identified vulnerable patients or those who needed additional support and made adjustments where possible. Appointments were undertaken at an appropriate time of day and when support was available, such as transport.

Whilst the service did not directly attend multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, they ensured all images were reported and verified promptly so if they were required for discussion at MDT meetings, they were available. The service monitored report turnaround times.

Description: We support people to manage their health and well-being so they can maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

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 supported people to manage their health and well-being to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

People who used services felt supported to manage their own health, care and well-being and to maximise their independence. For example, patients told us they were very happy with the amount and level of information they received after their scans. They were confident they knew what to do if they had a problem and knew how they would get their results.

People were told what to do if they needed to seek further help if their condition deteriorated after receiving care or treatment at the clinics.

Description: We routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes are positive and consistent, and that they meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

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 routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Audit processes monitored patient outcomes and compliance with best practice guidelines. Sonographers used the electronic reporting system to flag urgent images to administrative staff to share information with referrers.

Staff participated in some quality improvement initiatives, such as local clinical audits, bench-marking, and peer review. For example, the January 2026 clinical audit showed regular review and grading of a percentage of scans undertaken across the month. The audit showed out of the 80 scans audited for image quality, 31 were graded acceptable and 5 poor. In 3 cases it was noted images were not stored on the picture archiving and communication system (PACS). Staff were given individual feedback and areas for improvement.

The service held regular audit meetings to learn, feedback and monitor progress of actions. There was a structured reporting quality assurance process, including a 5% audit of scans, which included review of image quality and reporting standards. This was overseen through the clinical governance structure and included radiologist oversight and input. The audit included feedback for staff on individual cases.

The service monitored its capacity, did not attend (DNA) and cancellation rates. This showed capacity utilisation was consistently over 90%.

Description: We tell people about their rights around consent and respect these when we deliver person-centred care and treatment.

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 told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood the relevant consent and decision-making requirements of legislation and guidance. Staff monitored the process for seeking consent and reviewed it to ensure it met legal requirements and followed relevant national guidance. We saw staff explained procedures well, and recorded consent in the electronic record system.

Staff discussed imaging and treatment options with people, and they were encouraged to be part of the decision-making process. For example, patients undergoing pelvic ultrasounds were given the option of having a transvaginal scan as part of their examination. As part of this conversation, sonographers explained the risks and benefits so the patient could make an informed choice.

Staff explained if they had any concerns about people’s possible lack of mental capacity, they escalated them to the senior sonographer or registered manager.

Staff were aware of do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) orders when patients came to department for procedures. Where appropriate, patient information was transported with patients when attending for a scan or procedure.

The Peninsula Hub generally saw lower risk, mobile patients where possible. Staff were able to access patient’s full electronic GP clinical records if needed.

Managers monitored consent processes to ensure they met legal requirements and followed relevant national guidance. Of the last 40 scans audited, consent was documented in 95% of scans. This meant patients were made aware of risks associated with the scans they received.