Ultrasound Direct Southwest Coast

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. However, the service did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff.

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 and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, and respect. Staff used online reviews and written feedback to gather feedback from people. Feedback provided was consistently positive. People described staff as professional, caring and reassuring. One person told us the sonographer put them “completely at ease” during an examination and ensured they did not feel rushed throughout their appointment.

Staff recognised that the nature of these appointments could be stressful and described how they supported anxious people. Staff explained procedures clearly, responded to concerns and provided reassurance throughout the examinations

Staff understood the importance of maintaining privacy and dignity. Policies supporting chaperone use were current and staff explained how they protected confidentiality and respected personal preferences during examinations.

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.

However, the provider was unable to demonstrate consistent compliance with training relating to delivering difficult news. The service employed 50 staff members. Records showed only 6 out of 28 evidenced staff had completed training in this area, reducing the services assurance that all 50 active staff members had received support for managing sensitive conversations.

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 treated people as individuals and considered personal circumstances when delivering care. Staff described adapting communication according to people’s needs and explained how they supported people who were anxious or required additional reassurance.

Patient feedback demonstrated that people felt listened to and supported throughout their appointments. Staff explained how they adapted appointment times, communication methods and support arrangements where required.

Staff took time to answer questions, and we saw staff adapting their approach according to individual needs. The service had started to identify specific needs of some of the patient groups it supported. The franchise meeting minutes references “fertility champion” roles which indicated that the service had recognised fertility patients as a group who may need additional support and a more tailored experience.

The service had an in-date accessibility policy.

However, there were concerns regarding mobility accessibility in all the clinics that was not reflected in the policy. Also, the service did not routinely gather information about people’s individual needs at the point of booking appointments, which meant people could not always be supported proactively in relation to their individual needs when they attended their appointment.

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.

People were supported to maintain choice and control over their care. Staff described explaining procedures before examinations and obtaining consent before scans were undertaken. We saw that people were given opportunities to ask questions and discuss concerns before proceeding with investigations.

Staff recognised that some people experienced anxiety during scans and described measures to support choice and control. These included allowing patients additional time, explaining each stage of the procedure and stopping examinations where necessary. Staff explained how they involve people in decisions regarding their care and referral pathways. Information provided before appointments helped people understand what to expect and prepare for.

All people using the service 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.

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 scans, people understood how and when they would receive their test results and they had received copies of letters sent between the hospital and their GP. People described knowing who to contact if they were worried about anything following their scan or procedure. When scans indicated abnormal findings, the sonographer explained the results to the woman and her family in the scan room and arranged referrals to NHS services, ensuring people were not left without clarity or a clear pathway forward. This meant people were kept informed and supported.

The service offered a rescan appointment where the purpose of an appointment had not been met, and its reports recorded a clear outcome for each person. However, the service had not fully embedded a consistent approach to post-appointment wellbeing follow up or formal evaluation of staff responsiveness. Staff told us that follow up contact to check on people wellbeing after appointment was not always offered.

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

The service did not always demonstrate that staff well-being was effectively promoted. The service supplied results from a recent anonymous staff survey which identified concerns relating to leadership visibility, recognition, career development opportunities and access to learning and professional development. Staff also reported concerns regarding pay, reward and well-being support. One staff member resigned during the survey period citing the work environment as a direct reason for leaving. This was not an isolated concern as 14 staff members also left the service between June 2025 and March 2026 through resignations. The service had taken some action in response to the survey, including updating the job specification for the Regional Clinics Manager to clarify expectations around hours and weekend working.

However, there was no evidence that the survey results as a whole had been analysed, that themes had been identified, or that action had been taken in response to the concerns staff raised about leadership, visibility, recognition, career development, pay and wellbeing support.

Leaders told us that staff did not work alone. In areas we visited, staff worked as a team. Staff felt the work allocated to each sonographer and clinic was appropriate and allowed sufficient time for pre scan information checking. Staff reported having enough time to scan patients.

However, there were no daily clinical quality checks built into the work schedule, so there was a lack of structured oversight during the working day. While staffing levels were generally adequate, the absence of clear quality assurance processes meant the service could not consistently monitor or maintain clinical standards.