Women's Scan Clinic

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

This is the first assessment for this service since registration in January 2022. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

Women could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. The service was based in a ground‑floor room, making it accessible for women with limited mobility. A hearing loop was available, and a web-based translation system was available if language was a barrier. Appointments were offered until early evening and at weekends, allowing women to book around work or other commitments. The service also provided bespoke appointments to fit around fertility or IVF treatment schedules.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the local people and communities to enable onward care.

The service worked effectively with other providers to meet women's needs and support continuity of care. Staff had a good knowledge of the local area and understood what support other providers could offer. Leaders knew who they could receive referrals from and other services for onward referrals. During the onsite visit, staff contacted another scan provider to arrange a suitable appointment for a woman they were unable to see themselves.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service did not fully provide information in accessible ways. For example, paper consent forms were not available in any language other than English. The service also did not have its own information materials available in either printed or online formats. However, they did provide copies of Miscarriage Association information leaflets, including ‘Ectopic Pregnancy’, ‘Pregnancy After Loss’ and ‘Your Miscarriage’. These leaflets were available in hard copy and could also be downloaded in other languages or accessible formats.

The service kept women’s information safely and securely. They maintained confidentiality of records, with securely stored electronic scan records and paper consent forms. The registered manager of the service was aware of their responsibilities with regards to the management of information. They knew when to submit notifications to the CQC and they had completed training in information governance.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service did not support women to give their feedback, share ideas or make a complaint. There were no posters or leaflets informing women how they could raise concerns or provide comments about the service. The service had a complaints policy, which was last reviewed in October 2025. This was not available at the time of the inspection but was provided electronically following the inspection.

The service was not fully open about the outcome of complaints. A complaints summary showed 2 complaints between April 2025 and March 2026, although it was unclear whether these were formal written complaints. The summary included lessons learned but did not state whether the complaints were upheld or if apologies were given. For both complaints, the summary noted that the complainants were dissatisfied with the responses they received. However, neither complaint related to the practical delivery of the scan service or to scan procedures. Instead, the learning identified concerned the wording used in later-gestation scan reports.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff made sure that people could access the service they needed when they needed it.

Women could access care at a time that worked for them. The service only saw women for short periods, with scan appointments usually lasting about an hour. The service provided a statement explaining how it would support individual women’s needs, showing that it understood its responsibility to make the service accessible.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Not all staff had undertaken equality and diversity training. Leaders did not always consider people likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The service did not wholly consider the needs of women with different protected characteristics. Equality impact assessments had not been completed for the service policies and procedures. An equality, diversity and inclusion statement was provided for staff, but there was no statement specifically for women attending the service.

The sonographer had completed training in equality, diversity and human rights. However, the registered manager had not undertaken any equality‑related training.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Responsive key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.