Phoenix Ultrasound

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

We looked for evidence that people were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were not always met through good organisation and delivery. We identified a breach in the legal regulations relating to patient-centred care.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were given the choice of whether to share the outcome of their ultrasound scan with another medical practitioner. The sonographer provided advice on next steps and signposted verbally. This allowed patients to make their own treatment choice.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities.

All patients seen by Phoenix Ultrasound were self-funding and mostly self-referred. Staff told us they had not yet seen people with cognitive problems or learning difficulties, but they knew what to look for if people with protected characteristics were to make a booking. All staff received mandatory training on Learning Disability and Autism, and this was reflected in the training matrix we reviewed.

The service did not always supply information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

As part of our post inspection data request, we asked for all patient leaflets available at the clinic. All leaflets we saw were related to miscarriage and were from another agency. We did not receive any other leaflets, for example on ultrasound scanning itself or on health issues that could be identified via scanning. Information we saw was presented in English, in small font, and without pictures. This meant it was not accessible to all patient groups.

We reviewed patient reports and found they were not written in a patient-friendly way. Reports contained medical terms which a lay person would not necessarily understand, in particular those whose first language was not English. SOR and the BMUS recommend reports should be free from the use of ultrasound terminology as such phrases are generally meaningless to non-ultrasound users and may be subject to misinterpretation.

The service had an information governance policy in place, which was up-to-date and outlined data protection guidance, roles and responsibilities. The service had a Caldicott Guardian.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients were able to complain about the service verbally or in writing. The company’s website outlined the complaints procedure. The service had a complaints log. This recorded date of receipt, actions taken, and date of closure. The log did not record details of the complaint itself. A poster regarding how to complain was displayed in the waiting room. The service discussed complaints at their monthly clinical governance meeting, and this was reflected in the minutes we reviewed. Between January and March 2025, the service received 2 complaints. We saw these were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

The service made sure that people could access the appointments they needed when they needed them. However, the company’s website did not fully reflect availability and restrictions.

Phoenix Ultrasound offered appointments on one weekday from 8am-7pm and on weekends from 10am-7pm. The company’s website did not reflect this as it stated the clinic was open 7 days a week. It was possible to book same day appointments and patients told us the online booking system was straightforward. The service did not have a waiting list.

The provider’s website implied it had 2 locations, one in Banstead, Surrey, and one in London. However, only the Banstead location was known to the CQC.

Patients arrived at the location and spoke with reception staff on the ground floor to announce their arrival. Phoenix Ultrasound staff told us they provided ground floor reception staff with a list of patients for the day. Patients were usually seen quickly and on time.

Patients with mobility difficulties could not access the service due to evacuation issues in case of a fire. A disability audit had been conducted, which showed the risks outweighed the benefits. At the time of the inspection, the company’s website did not make this clear. Since the inspection this has been changed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Following a scan, staff provided verbal signposting and worsening advice. Staff did not check whether patients had understood this and did not provide written information. During one scan we observed a communication barrier as the patient was not proficient in English. We did not see evidence to assure us communication was tailored to this patient’s needs. This meant staff could not be assured all patients fully understood the outcome of their scans and whether they required medical follow-up.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff provided signposting information following scans and encouraged patients to seek further medical advice if required. This enabled patients in their decision making and took individual care preferences into account. The sonographer advised all patients in their written report to share results of their scan with other health professionals.