Baby Moments

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 patients were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of patients were understood. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances.

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

This meant people’s needs were met and they were at the centre or their care. Care was joined up and responsive. The service provided updated and accurate information. Patients were enabled to share feedback and make complaints.

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.

Staff understood the impact of patients having scans and how it could affect them positively or negatively. Staff worked holistically with patients to support their wellbeing, in particular following bad news.

Patients we spoke with commented that their appointment had been extended to allow in-depth discussions to alleviate worries and concerns.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

There was continuity in people’s care and treatment because the service was flexible and responsive. Patients booked their own appointments online and had flexibility in choosing their preferred day and time. Patients told us they did not have to wait long for available appointments.

The service was open 3 days a week, including a weekend day. Patients could book evening appointments on weekdays. This made it easy for people to book appointments outside of their working hours.

Staff coordinated patients’ care with other services well and made onward referrals where appropriate.

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’s website was comprehensive and informative. Patients had access to information relating to different types of scans, pricing, and reviews. The website had an area for frequently asked questions and patients could contact the clinic in a variety of ways, for example, by telephone or email. The service provided patients with clear and transparent information regarding costs.

The website clearly indicated the service had a patient complaints procedure in place and patients could complain in a variety of ways.

The service provided written information in the waiting area; for example, details about the use of chaperones, leaflets on support available through pregnancy, and on ending a pregnancy.

Staff knew how to make notifications to external bodies as needed. They had not had the requirement to report anything to the CQC in recent years.

The service used to offer non-invasive prenatal screening blood tests, but this had ceased. The service’s website had a tab outlining this; however, the pricing list and information about the clinic continued to list these types of tests. The website also did not provide eligibility criteria. Staff told us if someone booked who was not eligible (for example, under the age of 18), they would call the person and explain.

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 sought feedback from patients and had feedback forms available in the waiting area. Patients could give feedback anonymously and placed the form in a feedback box at the reception desk. Forms covered questions about patients’ needs, dignity and respect, opportunities to ask questions, and had a free text section. Feedback we reviewed was consistently positive and mentioned the kindness of staff, the calm atmosphere of the clinic and the individual treatment received.

Baby Moments had an up-to-date complaints policy outlining how staff should deal with informal and formal complaints. Staff told us they hardly received complaints or negative feedback. If they did, complaints were responded to in line with policy.

The service learned from complaints and saw them as an opportunity for improvement. For example, in response to a complaint, staff amended the outgoing answer phone message to make it clear when the clinic was next open.

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.

Although the service did not have a car park, there was ample parking at a nearby large supermarket, 5 minutes’ walk from the clinic. The service could be accessed from a nearby rail and bus station.

The clinic was located on the first floor of an office building, with access via a stairway or a lift. Once on the first floor, patients had to make their way through numerous doors and round tight corners to get to the clinic. This was not suitable for people in wheelchairs. It was unclear what advice the service would give to patients in wheelchairs. Managers were unable to make physical changes to the site due to contracts with the building owner.

The clinic was open 2 days a week until 7:30pm as well as on Saturdays. Patients could book appointments as soon as there was availability on an ad hoc basis. Patients booked into the clinic via the online booking system or by telephone.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

All staff received training in equality, diversity and inclusion. The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements and offered appointments avoiding discrimination and considering, where possible, the needs of people with protected characteristics.

Staff ensured patients could express their views openly and honestly and the service was introducing a quarterly patient feedback audit where they analysed feedback responses and discussed those at governance meetings.

We saw various feedback from patients on the provider’s website and on cards displayed in the waiting area. We heard feedback from patients on the day of our visit. All feedback about the care and the staff was positive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for life changes, so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their and their baby’s future.

Staff ensured they provided patients with the right and sufficient information to plan their next steps. This included referrals to other providers, and patients were supported in making decisions about their onward care.