The Baby Skan Studio

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 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.

At our last inspection we rated the responsive key question as good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

The service was mostly planned and provided in a way that met the needs of people. The environment met the needs of people. There was a spacious waiting room and the service recommended up to 4 people could accompany the client for a scan.

The service understood the needs of people. Care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. However the service only employed 1 sonographer therefore the provider could not always provide a service which operated uninterrupted due to holidays and sickness of staff.

The registered person was aware of the need to recruit a second sonographer however due to a shortage of sonographers this had not been possible to date. We spoke with 1 person who said the service was unable to accommodate their first choice of appointment scan, but was able to offer an alternative close to this date.

The service was funded by self-paying clients.

There was information available to clients that were tailored to individual needs. Staff spoke of using the internet to help translate written text for people whose first language was not English and the service was able to offer information in large print if requested.

The communication of fees for different scans was clearly stated both on the website and at the time of booking.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We saw the service had an easily accessible third party system for people to leave feedback. There was lots of positive feedback. The service also responded to feedback and complaints left on the third party feedback system. The service had a complaints policy and logged complaints to see if there was any learning that could be identified. The service clearly displayed information about how to raise a concern or a complaint. This was an improvement from the previous inspection in 2019 where we found there was no official complaints policy and there was no evidence of learning from complaints which were received.

The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. For example, the service offered early viability scans to people that would not qualify for these at the local NHS trust, which often saved the clients having to wait, in order to have any worries addressed such as the viability of a pregnancy.

The service tried to ensure people were accommodated with a time and date which suited them. The service adjusted scanning times to ensure there was enough time for people to ask questions. The service communicated to people if there was a delay to their scan. The service had improved its referral process since the last inspection to ensure people who were referred to other services were supported during this process.

The service had a wheelchair ramp to enable people to enter the premises. The booking process allowed people to flag any reasonable adjustments they required.

The service did not have any barriers to care with regards to who could access its service, however people had to have funds available to pay for the scans. Staff said they tried to provide people with an excellent experience during their scans.

We could not collect evidence to score this evidence category. This evidence category was not relevant to the service offered by the provider.