You are here

First Choice Ultrasound Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 April 2019

First Choice Ultrasound is operated by First Choice Ultrasound Limited. The service provides ultrasound baby imaging for pregnant women from the gestation of seven weeks. This includes, four dimensional (4D), three dimensional (3D) and two dimensional (2D) scans starting from seven to eight weeks as reassurance, gender scans from 16 weeks, baby growth scans from 16 weeks, “baby bonding” scans from 27 weeks and keep sake scans.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out the short-announced inspection on 26 January 2019.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

This was the first time we have rated this service. We rated it as Good overall.

We found the following areas of good practice:

  • Staff completed mandatory training and were aware of their responsibilities associated with safeguarding. They were competent for the role and had the appropriate skills and training.

  • The environment was appropriate for the procedures completed and infection control measures were in place.

  • Records were kept securely and copies provided to people using the services.

  • Care and treatment were provided against national guidance and was evidence based.

  • People were treated with compassion and privacy. They were involved in the consultation and provided with emotional support.

  • The service accommodated people’s individual needs and were responsive. Appointment times were agreed by the service and people using the service.

  • There was a positive culture at the service and they had a vision of what they wanted to achieve.

  • They engaged well with people to plan and manage the service and were committed to improving learning.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • The service did not always have systems in place to improve service quality and standards of care. They did not have policies in place such as mental capacity policy and did not always review policies to ensure they contained the most up to date and relevant information.

  • The service was aware of risks but did not have a system in place to document them. This included recording of any incidents, accidents or risks to the service.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with one requirement notice. Details are at the end of the report.

Name of signatory

Ellen Armisted

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (North)

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 April 2019

We rated safe as Good because:

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to staff and made sure it was completed.
  • Staff understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked with other agencies to do so.
  • The service controlled infection risk well
  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.
  • Staff completed risk assessments for each patient.
  • The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.
  • Staff kept detailed records of patients’ care and treatment.

However, we also found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • There was no process or policy in place to record incidents or accidents.

Effective

Updated 11 April 2019

Caring

Good

Updated 11 April 2019

We rated caring as Good because:

  • Staff cared for people with compassion.

  • Staff provided emotional support to patients to minimise their distress.
  • Staff involved people and those close to them in decisions about their care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 April 2019

We rated responsive as Good because:

  • The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people.

  • The service took account of patients’ individual needs.

  • People could access the service when they needed it.

  • The service treated concerns and complaints seriously and investigated them.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 11 April 2019

We rated safe as Requires improvement because:

  • The service did not always have systems in place to improve service quality and standards of care. This included regularly reviewing policies to ensure they contain the relevant information or referenced with current guidance.

  • Certain audits such as hand hygiene or a review of practice were not routinely undertaken. This meant that the sonographer could practice outside their scope of professionalism without their practice being reviewed.

  • The service was aware of risks but did not have a system in place to document them. This included recording any incidents, accidents or risks to the service.

    However, we also found:

  • The registered manager for the service had the right skills and abilities to run a service providing sustainable care.

  • The service had a vision for what it wanted to achieve and plans to turn it into action. There was a positive culture.

  • The service collected and used information to support all its activities, using secure electronic systems.

  • The service engaged well with people to plan and manage the service.

  • The service was committed to improving services by learning from when things went well or wrong, promoting training, research and innovation.

Checks on specific services

Diagnostic imaging

Good

Updated 11 April 2019

The service provided at this location was diagnostic and screening procedures. We overall rated this service as good. Safe, caring and responsive were rated as good. Effective was not rated. Well led was rated as requires improvement.

There were systems to monitor safety for people who use the services.

Evidence based practice was used in the delivery of services.

Staff were consistently caring, friendly and professional and all individuals we spoke with were positive about the services they received.

The service was sufficiently responsive to make reasonable adjustments for people who use the services, with disabilities.

However, there were areas of improvement that we asked the provider to make. These included the development of processes and procedures and reviewing the information provided to people using the service.