My baby and i scan Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. This is the first assessment for this My baby and I service. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement.

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy, and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity were respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy, and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

We observed staff did not support patients in understanding and managing their care.

Staff did not always direct patients to other services when appropriate and, if required, supported them to access those services.

However, on the day of inspection, we observed a patient being treated with kindness and compassion.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff did not ensure that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, how to complain and so on. We did not observe any demonstrable complaints pathway or complaints log. There was no clear process used to learn from complaints.

The information on the consent/waiver was not available in a form accessible to other patient groups. When asked about how the consent form was available, we were presented with a copy in 3 different languages, and no other alternatives were considered.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s concerns proportionately.

We observed that staff had not always escalated concerns and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as referring to other services.

There was a chaperone policy available, and staff told us that a female staff member would always be present should a chaperone be requested.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

There were no staff appraisals or conversations about career development and how it could be supported.

The registered manager did not have any recorded supervisions for staff to enable conversations to take place.

When we asked about career development staff said this would be done outside of work