Babyvision Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We looked for evidence and checked that people’s care was at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating has been rated as good. This meant patient’s outcomes were consistently good, and patient’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

The service usually made sure patient’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed people’s needs appropriately, with scans planned and delivered in line with evidence-based guidance, standards and best practice. Comprehensive records were maintained, including information gathered through an online booking system and a check-in form completed on arrival, which incorporated consent. The service proactively identified and accommodated individual needs at the point of booking, including requests for interpreters, chaperones or wheelchair access, supporting personalised and inclusive care.

Staff maintained clear, accurate and up-to-date records of womens personal details, which were accessible to those providing care. Records were held in paper format, including relevant clinical information such as estimated gestation, with separate forms for early pregnancy and gender scans. Consent was documented on these forms, with all reviewed records completed clearly and signed and dated appropriately.

Records were stored securely in lockable cabinets on site and transferred to secure offsite storage when required. The service had a medical records policy in place and was registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), with the registered manager demonstrating awareness of their data protection responsibilities.

Staff supported people’s comfort during their visit, assisting them into appropriate positions to facilitate effective imaging and optimise the quality of keepsake scans. The service also ensured people’s basic needs were met, with access to drinking water available in the waiting area via a water dispenser, promoting a comfortable and supportive environment for those using the service.

The service usually planned and delivered patient’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. Staff did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff were suitably qualified, experienced and competent to meet the needs of the service user group. The service adhered to the ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) principle, in line with national guidance from the Society and College of Radiographers and the BMUS, with scans completed efficiently, typically within 15 minutes, to minimise exposure. Staff consistently followed the ‘Pause and Check’ checklist to ensure appropriate safety checks were undertaken prior to each ultrasound examination, in accordance with national standards.

The registered manager/sonographer had completed relevant specialist training and maintained appropriate qualifications. Staff were also engaged in audit, benchmarking and quality improvement activity, including external peer review of documentation and scanning images, supporting continuous improvement and assurance of clinical practice. Staff followed up-to-date policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and clear references to current national guidelines.

The service undertook a structured clinical audit of 84 early pregnancy viability scans to assess accuracy of gestational age estimation, use of transvaginal ultrasound, referral practice and documentation standards. Findings demonstrated good correlation between menstrual dating and ultrasound assessment, with 83% of cases within ±7 days and an average variance of 2.7 days, indicating reliable dating practices. Transvaginal ultrasound was used appropriately in 31% of cases to support diagnostic clarity, reflecting sound clinical judgement. A low referral rate of 4.8% suggested most people were reassured following assessment, with appropriate escalation where required. Documentation was generally comprehensive, although a small number of records lacked completed outcome classifications, presenting a minor area for improvement. Overall, the audit provided assurance that the service delivered a safe, effective and appropriate early pregnancy ultrasound care, with ongoing audit processes supporting continuous quality improvement in line with expected standards.

The service usually worked well across teams and services to support patient. Staff made sure patient only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when patient moved between different services.

The service worked effectively with other organisations to support safe and coordinated care. Staff referred people appropriately to NHS services or the emergency departments where required, providing clear and relevant information to support continuity of care. Established arrangements were also in place with the laboratory responsible for non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), with all samples tracked to ensure results were received within the agreed five working days in line with the service level agreement, supporting timely and reliable care.

The registered manager/sonographer told us they had good relationship with local NHS trust safeguarding leading midwives, local authorities and other local baby scanning services if additional advice and support was needed. Staff worked collaboratively to deliver safe and effective care, with full-time staff maintaining positive working relationships and clear communication to support service delivery. The registered manager maintained regular contact with the zero-hours staff and worked closely with them when on site, ensuring continuity, consistency and appropriate oversight across the team.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing.

Information was readily available within the reception area, including leaflets signposting people to other services and sources of support, such as those relating to mental health and stress awareness, promoting holistic care and wellbeing.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

The service undertook limited but appropriate outcome monitoring given its size and scope. It maintained records of referrals made following the identification of abnormalities, which were used to support audit of outcomes where possible. Staff also reviewed and discussed ultrasound images to support shared learning and continuous improvement. However, feedback from receiving hospitals was not consistently obtained, and the service did not routinely seek follow-up information in cases where outcomes were likely to involve fetal demise or termination of pregnancy, which limited the completeness of outcome data.

The service demonstrated a structured approach to quality assurance and continuous improvement through peer review audits aligned with BMUS guidance, incorporating both image and report review. Audits undertaken in March 2025 (85 scans, approximately 11% of activity) and February 2026 (110 scans, approximately 14% of activity), including dating, reassurance and growth scans, identified generally consistent imaging and reporting standards with no significant safety concerns. Minor issues identified across both audits included isolated gaps in documentation, image quality optimisation, and terminology, with actions taken to reinforce accurate record-keeping, improve image clarity, and adopt updated clinical terminology such as “anembryonic pregnancy.”

Practice regarding M‑mode heart trace recording during reassurance scans and the selective imaging of fetal kidneys during growth scans was reviewed and deemed appropriate and in line with the scope of assessment. Additional improvements were identified in ensuring documentation of follow-up and fetal gender reconfirmation where applicable. Overall, findings required only minor improvements to documentation and terminology, with no changes to clinical practice indicated.

The service also benchmarked itself against similar providers to monitor performance and drive improvement. Women were encouraged to bring their NHS documentation to appointments to ensure consistency of estimated due dates, review recent NHS scans, and confirm midwife details, supporting continuity and accuracy of care.

The service told patient about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Staff followed the services policies related to consent, mental capacity, deprivation of liberty and restrictive practice, as relevant.

The service had robust processes in place to ensure informed consent was obtained prior to procedures. Women were provided with written information in advance of their scan appointment, which they were required to read and sign. This documentation outlined key information including consent, scan limitations, pricing, and data use. Staff verified that consent forms were completed and signed before proceeding with appointments, supporting safe and informed decision-making.

The service ensured a robust and transparent approach to consent and patient information. People were informed of their right to withdraw consent and stop the ultrasound scan at any time, supporting autonomy and choice. Prior to non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), people were provided with clear written information outlining the procedure and potential outcomes, and staff ensured they had sufficient opportunity to ask questions and fully understand how results would be communicated. The service was transparent in its pricing, with costs clearly displayed on leaflets, online and on the premises, enabling people to make informed decisions about their care.