You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 1 March 2019

During a routine inspection

Babyvision Limited is operated by Babyvision Limited. Facilities include one scanning room, one consultation room and one reception area.

The service comes under the diagnostic imaging core service they undertake baby keepsake scans, transvaginal scans and non-invasive pre-natal test (NIPT) tests.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We inspected the regulated activity of diagnostic imaging. We undertook an unannounced inspection on 1 March 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

We rated it as Good overall.

We found good practice:

  • The service provided mandatory training in key skills to all staff and made sure everyone completed it.

  • Staff understood how to protect women from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

  • The service mostly controlled infection risk well. Staff mostly kept themselves clean. Staff kept equipment and the premises clean. They used control measures to prevent the spread of infection.

  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.

  • Staff completed and updated risk assessments for each woman. They kept clear records and asked for support when necessary. Records were clear, up-to-date and easily available to all staff providing care. Staff had paper and electronic records

  • 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.

  • The service would manage safety incidents well. Staff would recognise incidents and would reported them appropriately. Managers would investigate incidents and would share lessons learned with the whole team and the wider service.

  • Managers monitored the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to improve them.

  • Staff understood how and when to assess whether a women had the capacity to make decisions about their care.

  • Staff cared for women with compassion. Feedback from women confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness. Staff provided emotional support to women to minimise their distress. Staff involved women and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.

  • The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people. People could access the service when they wanted it.

  • The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the results, and shared these with all staff.

  • The registered manager had the right skills and abilities to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care. The registered manager promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.

  • The service systematically improved service quality and safeguarded high standards of care by creating an environment for good care to flourish.

  • The service had effective systems to identify potential problems, deal with those problems and could cope with both the expected and unexpected.

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

We found areas of practice that require improvement:

  • The registered manager was not always bare below the elbows whilst carrying out scans.

  • The service did not have an equality and diversity policy in place.

  • The registered manager had not received an appraisal.

  • Staff at the service did not have up to date Mental Capacity Act training.

  • Individual needs were not always met. Staff at the service had used family members to translate for women receiving scans which is not in line with best practice.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make some improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

Inspection carried out on 19 October 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service, their partners and families who accompanied them. People were very pleased with the service they received. They told us they found the service ‘very professional’. Comments included, “I’m more than happy with the service I received, it was so much better than the hospital” and “it’s a very personalised service, you’re not just a number here”.

People told us they felt fully involved with their procedure. They said they were treated with respect and their privacy and dignity was upheld. They told us everything was fully explained to them and they were given lots of opportunity to ask questions.

People told us they felt safe visiting the clinic. One person said, “it’s a really nice and welcoming building”. The building was fit for purpose, well maintained and easily accessible.

There was a process in place to ensure that checks were obtained on staff working at the clinic. A member of staff told us they enjoyed their work and felt well supported.

The manager ensured that people's views were considered and listened to. People had access to complaint and suggestion forms available in the waiting room and on the website. One person told us, “I can’t see why anybody would wish to complain, it’s an excellent service”.

Inspection carried out on 14 September 2011

During a routine inspection

We spent approximately two and a half hours at the visit. We used a wide range of evidence to make judgements about the service. This involved speaking to three women who used the service, one member of staff and the registered manager. We were shown some records that demonstrated to us how the service complies with the Essential standards of quality and safety.

We spoke to three women who visited the service during our visit. They were very positive about Ruth the registered manager. They said :

“ Ruth was very kind and reassuring, she put me at ease and explained the procedure. She showed me the images and spent time explaining things to me.”

“Ruth explained everything I needed to know. She was patient and I was not rushed. She went into much more detail than the hospital did.”

“It was an amazing experience, Ruth was knowledgeable and courteous. My privacy was maintained and I did not feel rushed. I would highly recommend the service. It was easy to book and staff were friendly when I called to make the appointment.”