Women's Scan Clinic

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 is the first assessment for this service since registration in January 2022. 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 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion

Women were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. We spoke with 4 women as part of our inspection, who all gave positive feedback about the service. They spoke highly of the sonographers, with one describing them as “lovely” and saying they “explained everything.” Another said, “their bedside manner was excellent.”

Staff had a caring attitude. Women found the sonographers compassionate and sensitive to their anxieties. One woman said, “It can be nerve-racking having a scan, but the sonographer was really reassuring, so we did not feel anxious for long.”

Women also described the service as very professional. One person commented, “It is one of the better private clinics I’ve been to.”

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

Women’s individual needs and preferences were not always understood and reflected in their care. The service’s statement, ‘Specific Arrangements to Support Individual Patient Needs’ had no issue or review date on the document. This was provided after our inspection onsite, so we were unsure if the document was in use at the time of the inspection. Women we spoke with did not refer to any specific arrangements they had required. However, one woman commented that the information given about drinking water before a scan was too general and did not work for them. They said that it was difficult to drink all the water they had been instructed to and felt this could have been better explained in a more personalised way.

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 wellbeing.

Women were supported to make choices relating to their care. The service provided hour-long appointments, and there was a wide range of appointment times which included early evening and weekends. Women were also able to choose whether any person accompanying them stayed with them during the scan procedure. The women we spoke to confirmed people who attended with them were involved as much as they had wanted them to be.

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.

Staff responded to women’s needs, views and wishes to avoid any preventable discomfort of distress. The service reviewed women’s relevant medical histories at the beginning of appointments. If a scan procedure identified potential risks or complications, the service would make a telephone referral to a relevant provider. For example, an NHS Early Pregnancy Assessment Unit (EPAU). The staff would send copies of the scan images and report with the woman to ensure continuity of care. The service had considered the need to be accessible. Women were able to have appointments when it suited them, and they were given sufficient time for the process. The women we spoke to confirmed that the appointment met their needs. One woman said, “We were made to feel really welcome, it didn’t feel rushed at all. We could take time to look at the scan and ask questions.”

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Leaders did not consistently provide opportunities for staff to receive information or meet together to share learning and good practice.

Staff did not have regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns or suggest ways to improve the service or staff experience. The service was small, employing only the registered manager and a sonographer on a regular basis. A phlebotomist worked occasionally when needed. We were told that no staff had left the service for several years. Because of the size of the service, it did not provide a staff handbook outlining employee benefits such as annual leave, sick pay, or staff recognition schemes. However, employees should still have access to a clear summary of these benefits. During the inspection and in the information provided afterwards, we did not see any employee guidance or records relating to staff benefits. We also did not find any records of staff meeting minutes or internal staff communications.

However, the sonographer spoke positively about working for the service. We were told the sonographer had an appraisal in November 2025, with the next appraisal due in November 2026. However, we did not see any evidence of this appraisal and no evidence about career development or training opportunities.