My baby and i scan Ltd

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Inadequate.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. 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

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.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not always work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff could not demonstrate any recorded conversations where individual needs and preferences around consent to refer concerns to other services had been discussed. We observed that the tick box on the waiver form to consent to referral was not always completed.

Staff said they did not have patient files demonstrating any conversations that had taken place to ensure the care people received was person-centred. This included patients who were using the service more than once and had previous difficulties in pregnancy.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. There were some shortfalls in how the service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible, or supportive of choice and continuity.

Staff stated that if there were communication barriers and a patient could not understand information given to them, they wouldn’t attempt to provide alternatives; they would mime for them to sign a consent form. This meant people’s needs were not always met in ways to protect their equality characteristics

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not supply appropriate, accurate, and up to date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

There was a lack of transparent information in the consent/waiver form.

We were not assured that information governance systems included confidentiality of patient records; we saw notes on a scanning machine, which had not been transferred into secure patient records.

Staff could not demonstrate that the service complied with the Accessible Information Standard.

Staff did not ensure that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights, and how to complain.

The registered manager and staff stated that information leaflets were only available in 3 languages spoken by patients.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Staff did not actively seek feedback from clients aside from social media. There was no information presented to patients on how to raise a complaint, and the service did not keep a record of complaints or compliments. We were told by the registered manager they would rebook another scan if a client was unhappy, but this information was not recorded.

Staff could not provide examples of learning from complaints. Following inspection, the provider sent us a blank copy of a complaint and compliment form, although patients were not made aware of this on the initial waiver/consent form.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Clients could access appointments through the service’s online booking system or by telephone. The main entrance was wheelchair accessible, but the bathroom was not.

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.

Staff within the service could not demonstrate that they promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff did not actively seek feedback from clients aside from social media.

The provider had not undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

Staff were not trained in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights, and had not had training on disability, autism, and mental health awareness to a mandatory level.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. People were not always supported in planning for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future