Elite Community Ultrasound

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 looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This was our first assessment of this service. This key question was rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good service organisation and delivery.

The service delivered person-centred care and worked flexibly to meet people's individual needs. Staff considered the needs of people experiencing anxiety, sensory overload and mental ill health, and provided continuity of care where possible.

Information about the service was available on the provider's website, and staff followed national guidance when supporting people accessing non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT).

People were able to provide feedback about their experiences, and the service investigated complaints and used learning to support improvement.

However, information was not always available in accessible formats, such as easy-read or alternative languages, and there was limited evidence of formal engagement with other providers.

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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and supported them to make decisions about treatments or services available.

The service offered flexible appointment options, including same-day, evening and weekend appointments, enabling patients to access care at a time that suited their individual circumstances. Patients were able to self-refer without requiring a GP referral, which gave them greater choice and control over when and how they accessed the service.

Staff recognised and responded to patients' individual needs. They allocated additional time and scheduled appointments during quieter periods of the day for patients at risk of sensory overload or experiencing mental ill health.

Patients were involved in discussions about their care and staff explained scan findings in a way they could understand. The service also demonstrated an inclusive approach by adapting aspects of its gender reveal package to better reflect individual preferences.

The service offered a range of scan options to meet people's differing needs and circumstances. These included pregnancy-related scans, such as early pregnancy, gender, 4D and reassurance scans, alongside diagnostic services including musculoskeletal and vascular ultrasound scans. This enabled people to choose the service and type of assessment most appropriate for their individual needs.

The service supported people to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. The website was comprehensive, easy to navigate and provided patients with a range of information to help them choose the most appropriate scan for their needs. Information included pricing, scan duration, reasons for having a scan, preparation requirements, frequently asked questions, patient testimonials and reviews.

The registered manager made sure staff and patients could get help from interpreters or signers when needed. Details of support was discussed at the referral stage which enabled staff to be prepared for the appointment in advance.

The service was accessible by wheelchair and step-free access was provided. The reception area and the waiting area had a seating area and toilet facilities for patients and visitors.

The service had a policy to support patients with limited English and those who were deaf or hard of hearing. The policy stated that interpreters, translation applications and British Sign Language (BSL) interpreters should be used where required. However, the policy did not include clear guidance, contact details or referral pathways for staff to access these services. This meant staff may not have been able to consistently arrange appropriate communication support for patients, creating a risk that people’s communication needs may not be met effectively.

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 service had arrangements in place to support continuity of care following diagnostic assessments. Where patients consented, scan reports were shared with the relevant healthcare professional to support ongoing care and treatment. Reports included scan findings and clinical notes suitable for GP review and follow-up, helping to support continuity of care.

The website included links to the NHS symptom checker, enabling people to access trusted healthcare information and seek appropriate advice where necessary.

Staff signposted patients to appropriate services when further assessment, treatment or follow-up was required and were able to describe occasions where patients had been directed to local NHS services following significant scan findings.

Patients received information about their scan results and any recommended next steps, helping them to make informed decisions about their ongoing care. As a single-episode diagnostic service, the provider did not routinely deliver ongoing treatment, but had processes in place to support patients to access further care where appropriate.

However, we saw limited evidence of formal engagement or established referral pathways with local healthcare providers. Although this was not a regulatory requirement for a service of this type, stronger links with local services could further support integrated care and continuity for patients requiring onward referral.

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.

The service supplied patients with appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information to support informed decision-making. Information about available services, scan options, costs and appointment types was clearly displayed on the website, enabling patients to understand the choices available to them before booking.

We observed the sonographer explaining procedures clearly, including the purpose of the scan, what it would involve, any limitations, and how the results would be communicated. Patients were given the opportunity to ask questions and the sonographer checked their understanding and expectations.

Patients who self-referred for screening, including non-invasive pre-natal testing (NIPT), were provided with information and leaflets, in line with National Screening Committee (NSC) guidance. This supported informed decision-making by providing information about the purpose, benefits, limitations and potential outcomes of screening before patients chose whether to proceed.

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.

Information was primarily provided electronically through the provider's website, and some printed information was available at the service.

However, information was not available in alternative languages or formats.

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.

The service provided several ways for patients to contact them, including by telephone, email and through an online form on the website.

The registered manager told us that approximately 30% of patients provide online feedback. They described how feedback was used to drive continuous improvement and gave an example of a patient who had awarded the service a 1-star rating following a scan appointment.

The registered manager contacted the patient to discuss their experience and identify any areas for improvement. The patient explained that the low rating was due to being unable to access the link to their scan results, rather than dissatisfaction with the service itself.

In response, the registered manager sent the scan report as a PDF and subsequently changed the process so that patients could choose to receive their reports in this format. This demonstrated that patient feedback was listened to and used to improve the service.

Staff were also able to contribute ideas for service improvements. Following learning from a complaint, an administrative staff member suggested developing information packs for patients to take home after appointments. These included information for patients experiencing pregnancy loss, those requiring follow-up, and those whose scan results were reassuring. The registered manager worked with staff to develop these resources. This demonstrated that staff were able to contribute ideas and that these suggestions could be used to support service improvement.

The registered manager told us the service had not received many formal complaints and stated in a data request they had received approximately four complaints between April 2025 and April 2026. However, they were unable to confirm the exact number of complaints received during this period. This did not demonstrate effective oversight of the complaints process, as leaders were not able to accurately account for complaints and monitor trends within the service.

The service had a complaints procedure which stated that, while the registered manager retained overall responsibility for complaints, a designated complaints manager would be appointed to lead complaint investigations. There was no complaints manager in post at the time of our assessment. Despite this, we reviewed an investigation relating to a complaint and found it had been appropriately managed. The complainant had been contacted by email and offered a follow-up scan at no additional cost. We were also able to confirm that learning had been identified and acted upon following complaints.

However, information on how patients could make a complaint or provide feedback was not clearly displayed on the website.

The service did not have arrangements in place for independent external review of complaints, such as through the Independent Services Complaint Advisory Services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service did not have a waiting list. An online booking system enabled patients to view appointment availability and choose an appointment date and time that suited them. The service offered appointments 7 days a week and, at the time of our assessment, patients were typically able to secure an appointment on the same day they made the request. Staff made reasonable adjustments for patients, including those with mobility issues. The service was located on the ground floor and, although there was a small step at the entrance, staff could provide a ramp when needed.

The service’s medical questionnaire included questions about accessibility and communication needs. This enabled staff to identify any additional support requirements before appointments and make reasonable adjustments in advance where required.

The location had dedicated parking spaces at the front of the premises. Patients and visitors could use these free of charge, with staff registering vehicle details at reception.

The service completed around 2500 scans during the previous 12 months. There were minimal cancellations and, where possible, appointments were rearranged if patients were unable to attend as originally planned. A cancellation policy was available on the provider website which outlined the process for patients wishing to cancel their appointment.

The service monitored performance to ensure patients received their scan results in a timely way. The service aimed to complete 95% of scan reports within 24 hours. An audit completed in May 2026 showed that 97% of scans were reported within 24 hours. Of these, 100% of urgent findings were escalated the same day. The service had not received any complaints relating to report delays during the audit period.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

We did not see evidence that feedback from people with protected characteristics was routinely analysed to identify and address potential inequalities in experience or outcomes. The service relied primarily on online reviews to monitor patient experience.

The provider had not undertaken equality impact assessments of its policies and procedures. This meant it could not be assured that policies did not unintentionally disadvantage people with protected characteristics or other vulnerable groups.

Not all staff had completed training in equality, diversity and human rights. This meant the provider could not be assured that all staff had received appropriate training to support people with diverse needs and protected characteristics.

However, the registered manager had completed training in learning disabilities and autism, as well as equality, diversity and human rights.

Staff fostered a culture in which people using the service felt encouraged to share their views. Patients believed the provider would listen to and act on any concerns to improve care.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their care.

Staff provided signposting information following scans and encouraged patients to seek further medical advice if required. This enabled patients in their decision making and took individual care preferences into account.

The service did not routinely care for people who were nearing the end of their life. Staff supported patients to understand the results of any scans and tests and communicated these in a sensitive and dignified way. Staff discussed the next steps in their care and treatment and referred patients to other healthcare providers when appropriate.

With patient consent, staff shared images and reports with other healthcare providers to support continuity of care. Staff were also able to signpost patients to external organisations for further advice, emotional support, or specialist services, helping patients feel informed and supported throughout their care journey.