Rainbow Baby Scans

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 people’s care, support and treatment reflected these needs and any protected equality characteristics, ensuring people were at the centre of their care. We also looked for evidence that leaders instilled a culture of improvement, where understanding current outcomes and exploring best practice was part of their everyday work.

Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’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.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always record their findings. Although they discussed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff did not complete full risk assessments or record vital information on patient imaging reports. We found that important information was missing from the from the final obstetric reports. For example. the number of times women had been pregnant, how many previous birth, or current health conditions or medication. We reviewed 4 sets of digital care records and found gaps in documenting the woman’s current medication, preexisting health conditions, ethnicity, or the number of times a woman had been pregnant.

Staff involved women in the assessment of their needs. The sonographer developed care plans that met the needs identified during the face-to-face scanning process. For example, when women arrived for their appointment, they were asked to confirm their last monthly period date and demographic information. The sonographer provided a ‘Obstetric Report’ which could be shared with third party services like the NHS early pregnancy team. The sonographer reported their findings under the comments section and made meaningful referrals when they suspected deviations from normal.

Staff used a range of assessment tools to identify the women’s and their unborn baby’s needs. The sonograph provided various types of scans. For example, different 3 or4 dimensional scans able to provide accurate calculations or fetal growth and wellbeing. The sonographer ensured that scans were personalised and holistic and captured the information requested as part of the scan such as viable pregnancy, due date and gender of the baby.

The sonographer updated care plans when necessary. Women were given a copy of their scan report and scan photos of the baby. Staff made referrals to external bodies as needed. For example, in the event of a suspected ectopic pregnancy or if the fetal heartbeat was not found.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The service provided care and treatment that was evidence based and in line with good practice standards. The sonographer followed national guidelines as well as local policies such as the ‘ultrasound service policy for pregnancy scans and the detection of abnormalities’ and the ‘ultrasound scanning in pregnancy’ protocol.

The sonographer was experienced and qualified and had completed their initial training within the NHS. They had the right skills and knowledge to meet the scanning needs of women. The sonographer was a member of the Society of Radiographers and the Regulating Technologists profession and had completed 18 training modules online, which included but were not limited to: first aid awareness, basic life support for paediatrics and adults and safeguarding levels 1, 2 and 3.

Staff understood national guidance relevant to the care they provided. The service had set policy reviews dates biannually. The policy contents were aligned to national guidance. However, their reviews were overdue as they expired in July 2025. We raised this with the registered manager during and after the inspection. Following our feedback, the manager submitted evidence to CQC demonstrating that policies had been updated and extended to 2029.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked together to make sure people were listened to and had their needs met. This service employed 2 people, the sonographer (the manager), and a receptionist. The registered manager who was the main sonographer had access to a bank sonographer who worked within the NHS when needed to cover sickness or leave.

Staff shared information about patients at effective morning meetings and when necessary, made patient referrals to external services. Staff had effective working relationships with the local GP surgeries and the local NHS trust and made sure that women referred to the NHS were followed up with a courtesy call.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduced their future needs for care and support.

The service empowered women to manage their pregnancy because they understood their needs. Staff supported patients to maintain and improve their health. For example, through referrals to smoking cessation schemes, and healthy eating advice. The service offered emotional counselling in the event of a sad outcome. This included one free counselling session with a registered counsellor funded by the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Staff ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People who used the service had positive outcomes that met their needs. The sonographer used technology by way of the ultrasound machine to support women effectively. The scanner had the ability to provide images in 2, 3 and 4d. Growth was plotted and benchmarked against the normal fetal growth and placental flow standards.

The manager utilised their NHS role to request formal peer reviews of their images to ensure they were aligned with evidence-based practice. The peer reviewer was known to the service and was easy to contact.

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.

The sonographer took steps to enable women to make their own decisions about their scanning needs. Women were asked for consent through the digital booking form and again on arrival using a consent form that explained the purpose, risks and benefits of the scan. Women confirmed they had read and understood the information by signing the form. Signed forms were then uploaded to the electronic patient record.

Staff understood how to escalate concerns about a woman’s mental capacity and when applicable involved partners and families to make informed decisions about their scanning needs.