Baby Moments

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 that people and communities had the best possible outcomes because their needs were assessed. We checked that patients’ care, support and treatment reflected these needs, ensuring people were at the centre of their care.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has improved to good.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment in line with legislation. Patients received a wellbeing check prior to each treatment. Staff ensured consent was gained prior to commencing treatment.

However, staff did not follow the appropriate identification checks prior to scanning patients.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The sonographer took time to ensure they were informed about the patients’ pregnancy history and any previous scan results. This helped them ensure that considered the patients’ health care and well being.

When information from scans indicated there was a need for further review, the service had clear pathways and processes for the management of people who required hospital admission or other relevant services. Patients received a printed off report and a memory stick of images to take with them once referred to another service.

We scored the service as 2. We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Staff did not follow the appropriate three point of identification check. This is important to ensure the right person gets the right scan at the right time and is in line with best practice.

Staff we spoke with knew how to access relevant policies and procedures on the service’s online system. Staff were given sufficient time to read and understand policies and signed a form to confirm they had done so. Policies and procedures generally did not appear to be based on national guidance. For example, there was no mention of the Royal College of Radiologists, the Society of Radiographers, or the British Medical Ultrasound Society.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people.

This was a small clinic, and it was evident staff worked well together to provide a service to families. We witnessed good communication between clinicians, administrators and patients.

Information was shared between services to ensure continuity of care. For example, the clinic had an informal agreement with the local EPU to refer any patients with abnormal scan results. The sonographer called the EPU whilst the patient was in the room. We witnessed one occasion where the sonographer spoke with the EPU and then handed the telephone to the patient to discuss arrangements directly with the EPU team.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing.

The service focused on identifying risks to people’s pregnancies and wellbeing early and supported them when issues were identified. Patients received written advice if needed; for example, relating to miscarriage.

Patients received a wellbeing check prior to each treatment, which included discussions of their physical health.

This was not assessed.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Patients were informed about the service being provided to help them make informed decisions. The service had consent forms for every type of scan performed. They ensured patients completed this on arrival and we witnessed this on the day. Each consent form outlined the type of scan, any risks associated, the option to have a chaperone present, and any onward management if an abnormality was found.

Staff received training on providing consent and their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff knew the process to take when they believed a woman did not have the capacity to consent, which was in line with the service’s consent policy. However, staff reported they had never had an incident of a women lacking capacity to consent.