Ultrasound Direct Southwest Coast

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 means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

While we saw positive examples, however there were some gaps in how the service recognised the diverse health and care needs of patients and local communities.

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 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

A pre-scan questionnaire was given to people on arrival to the clinic, this questionnaire did not ask people about additional support needs ensuring their experience was planned and managed uniquely for them. The service’s policies supporting reasonable adjustments and accessibility guidance stated that people who were deaf or with a hearing impairment could be supported through British Sign Language (BSL) Interpretation by prior arrangement. Without disclosure of these needs before the appointment, the service could not reasonably ensure all required support was set up in a timely manner. This limited the services ability to plan adjustments in advance. This also meant the service was unable to anticipate certain individual needs prior to attendance for people with mental health needs, autistic people and people with a learning disability. Staff explained that patients with additional needs were often accompanied by carers or chaperones, which reduced the immediate need for internal adjustments. However, this placed the burden of additional support on the people.

Leaflets promoting mental health and addressing anxiety were readily available. Staff demonstrated an understanding of the importance of reviewing not only the progress of pregnancies but also identifying and referring any potential gynaecological concerns.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The clinic provided a spacious waiting area that offered a comfortable and suitable environment for people. The service supplied free feminine hygiene products and nappies, and accessible toilets and baby-changing facilities were available onsite. The clinic was located close to public transport links, supporting ease of access. In addition, the electronic booking system was monitored daily, offering people the flexibility to book appointments online via a 24/7 platform. Staff coordinated appointment schedules to ensure scans did not take place too close together.

The website contained clear and accessible information about the packages available, including transparent pricing. It also included guidance for prospective patients on what to do before arriving at the clinic, what to expect on arrival, and details about the scan process. Frequently asked questions were also available on the website to support patient understanding.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was available in alternative formats and languages where required. Staff explained how information was reviewed and updated to ensure it remained current. Patients were supported to understand procedures, expected outcomes and follow-up arrangements. The evidence reviewed supported that information was generally accessible and reflected to individual needs.

People were made aware of the costs of any diagnostic and screening procedures, and these were clearly displayed on the company website and in leaflets available within the centre. People could choose an appointment to suit their needs, for example, 4D scanning, gender reveal merchandise and heartbeat recordings. The cost of each product was clearly displayed in the premises and online.

Appointment information was confirmed verbally and by email. Invoicing was also completed online, enabling information to be shared quickly and prior to appointments.

Sonography reports were stored securely onsite, as well as electronically. This enabled images and information to be reviewed retrospectively for quality reviews or in the event of a complaint.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

A complaints audit covering January to June 2025 identified 22 complaints across the six clinic sites for this service. Poole had 2, Southampton had 4, Chichester had none, Portsmouth had 7, Exeter had 6 and Plymouth had 2. The most common themes were rude staff behaviours (8 complaints) and concerns about scan results (5 complaints). All 22 complaints had documented learning outcomes recorded against them. Complaints were resolved within 2 days where possible and all did not exceed 14 days demonstrating a timely resolution process. Where issues were identified, managers acknowledged the feedback and contacted people directly to seek resolution. This meant people who raised concerns could be confident they would be heard, responded to promptly and feedback was used to drive improvement in care.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People booked their appointments online using the clinic’s website on a date and time that best suited them, and they would self-refer to the service. There was an option for people to book same-day appointments online, therefore ensuring a range of flexibility with appointment times.

However, the layout of the clinic was not suitable for people who could not transfer to the bathroom independently. Staff were not trained in manual handling and therefore could not assist those who required this support. Although the provider’s website stated that the clinic did not have a wheelchair-accessible toilet onsite, this meant that people who use wheelchairs, and those accompanying them, were effectively unable to access the service, creating a barrier to equitable care.

Evidence also showed that some clinic locations had limited wheelchair access. Leaders told us the Exeter location had step free access via a ramp and lift and the Portsmouth and Poole clinics were on the ground floor with wheelchair access. However, the Chichester, Southampton and Plymouth sites had no wheelchair accessibility. Southampton had no accessible toilet, and the service told us accessible toilets were not possible at a number of its clinic locations due to the structural changes that would be required. The service acknowledged this limitation on their website. This meant that people who use wheelchairs were effectively excluded from accessing the service at the majority of clinic locations, representing a significant barrier to equitable care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

All people spoken with described their overall experience as positive and reported that they understood potential outcomes before attending the service.

People were able to access the service when they needed it, received the right care, and received their results promptly.

Staff facilitated same day appointments and provided direct telephone access to the public opening houses, ensuring flexibility for all people with varying needs.

All staff had completed the equality and diversity training, supporting care delivery in line with the service’s diversity policy. We saw their policies were set up to ensure people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010) received carefree from bias.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were provided with information regarding their results, follow up arrangements and onward care pathways in a timely way.

Staff explained how patients were supported to make informed decisions regarding treatment and future healthcare needs, and the service had arrangements for continuity of care and communication with referrers.

Test results were provided promptly where this was necessary for the type of scan undertaken and staff provided information about the relevant support groups, including a post-menopausal bleeding information leaflet.

People reported that they understood the information staff provided and had sufficient time to consider their options. This meant that people left the service with clarity about what happened next and felt equipped to engage with their ongoing care.