Window to the Womb Reading

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

We found a service where staff understood their responsibilities regarding data protection regulations. Women could access services in a timely manner. They could book appointments when they suited women, including evenings and weekends. The service was accessible and provided appropriate facilities to support women. There were no wait times and although women were seen promptly when they arrived at the service, there was still no auditing of the length of time women waited in reception. People using the service advised us that the area where they reviewed photographs was cramped and lacked privacy.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s experience

Score: 3

Women advised us they felt staff took the time to understand their personal fertility and pregnancy stories in order to support them during scans and investigative testing. Women mentioned their appointment had been extended to allow in-depth discussions to alleviate worries and concerns.

Feedback from staff and leaders

Score: 3

Staff took the time to understand women’s concerns regarding their pregnancies and used everyday language when describing scans and results to support understanding.

Observation

Score: 3

Staff gave information leaflets to women when they had a pregnancy of an unknown location, for example, an ectopic pregnancy, a confirmed miscarriage or an inconclusive scan. The leaflets contained a description of what the sonographer had found, advice, and the next steps they should take.

Feedback from staff and leaders

Score: 3

Staff and managers were positive about the service’s new location. The site was more spacious and had a greater number of separate rooms. The manager advised us this enabled staff to have more privacy when they had difficult conversations.

Feedback from partners

Score: 3

Local providers we spoke with did not have any issues or concerns regarding this services integration and continuity of care.

Processes

Score: 3

The service was located on the ground floor for easy access and the doors to the clinic could accommodate a wheelchair. The location was straightforward to find and there was plenty of parking available, including disabled parking spaces. There were accessible toilets and baby change facilities were also available onsite.

People’s experience

Score: 3

People we spoke with were happy that they quickly received scanning reports whilst still onsite. Women advised us the ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ section of the website was very useful as it included answers regarding general pregnancy questions as well as specific scanning questions. One woman advised us it was a useful reference as she found she forgot to ask questions when speaking with her midwife.

Feedback from staff and leaders

Score: 3

Staff demonstrated how to access the services catalogue of leaflets and showed us how to change the language, including Braille and large print.

Processes

Score: 3

Online systems and leaflets provided information to women in 220 languages.

People’s experience

Score: 3

Women knew how to make a complaint and felt confident it would be taken seriously and investigated appropriately. We viewed reviews of this service and found that they were overwhelmingly positive averaging at 4.9 out of 5.

Feedback from staff and leaders

Score: 3

We observed staff providing women with feedback forms. These could either be returned directly to the service or submitted online. Where specific members of staff were included, management forwarded the feedback to the individual and these were used as a part of their appraisal.

Processes

Score: 2

We found some gaps in the governance of complaints. Documentation did not include next steps and follow up. For example, we saw the service received a complaint where there was a difference of opinion between the services conclusion of the gender versus what the couple had been told during an NHS scan. The file stated they sought an internal second opinion and were happy with their conclusion. However, there was no follow up to determine whether this was correct or whether there was a chance for learning. Another complaint stated the woman was not advised they would have a male sonographer. The registered manager demonstrated this information was now available on the website, however this was not documented in the file.

People’s experience

Score: 3

Women and families were happy with the speed in which they were able to be seen. Especially those who wanted assurances regarding their pregnancy.

Feedback from staff and leaders

Score: 2

We observed women and their families arrive in the reception area, where they only waited a few minutes before being shown through to the scanning room. However, the service still did not audit women’s waiting time.

Processes

Score: 3

The service was open 7 days a week. Opening hours varied day-to-day but included morning, afternoon and evening appointment times.

Women could book their scan on the services website or via the telephone. Online bookings could not be confirmed unless women entered the date of their last menstrual period or estimated due date. This ensured women were signposted to appropriate scans. When selecting the type of scan, the online booking system detailed the price, how many weeks the type of scan was suitable for, the window when it was suitable for the individual (based on their due date given on the form), the duration of the scan and a description of what the scan entailed.

The service did not have waiting lists. Women referred themselves directly to the service and were able to choose their booking day and time in accordance with their own schedules. Women received the results of their scans immediately afterwards. Sonographers completed their reports whilst women were choosing their keepsake photographs.

People’s experience

Score: 3

All people we spoke with said overall their experience was positive, and they understood potential outcomes before attending the service.

Processes

Score: 2

Translation processes did not follow best practice. Staff working at the service spoke many languages and advised us they ‘unofficially’ translated to patients or their friends and family during appointments. This posed a safeguarding risk, for example, not identifying potential modern slavery concerns, if staff were unable to directly communicate with women without friends and family present. However, the service has since provided evidence to demonstrate, staff now had access to a translation service.

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.