Baby I Love You Limited

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.

This was the first rated assessment for this service since 2019. This key question has been rated 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 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service had a ‘patient risk assessment’ procedure in place. This identified admission criteria to the service, for example pregnant individuals within the appropriate gestational window for the scan type offered, patients who had received appropriate prior NHS or clinical care where required, and that patients were able to provide informed consent. Patient details and associated risks were confirmed at the time of initial booking and checked at the time of the procedure.

Exclusion criteria had also been defined such as suspected or confirmed ectopic pregnancy, patients under 16 years of age, patients currently under active hospital management for growth concerns or complications without clinical clearance, and any patient presenting with symptoms requiring urgent medical attention (for example, severe pain or bleeding). We saw staff assessed patients against further potential risks such as safeguarding concerns, correct identification, and distress caused by unexpected findings.

We saw gender and reassurance scans were planned and delivered in line with evidence-based guidance, standards and best practice including checking details, privacy, midwifery input and next NHS appointment. The service had operational procedures and local safety rules in place reflecting best practise. We saw patients were assisted into comfortable positions for imaging wherever possible. Patients had access to drinking water as needed.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

Staff followed up-to-date local policies to plan and deliver high quality care according to best practice and national guidance. All policies we looked at contained a creation and review date, and clear references to current national guidelines. There were systems to communicate changes in guidance through management and staff meetings. We saw notice boards displayed up to date guidance for staff. We reviewed patient records for evidence of completion of risk assessments of patients and saw these had been completed appropriately.

The service completed a series of audits for baby scans and phlebotomy on a daily, monthly and quarterly basis. We reviewed audits for the last twelve months and saw these identified issues and action plans where needed. The latest three-monthly audit before inspection (March 2026) confirmed scan findings were documented clearly and consistently, and clear protocols for different scan types were in place. Similarly for blood tests, audits confirmed samples were labelled correctly at point of collection and traceable from collection to dispatch.

Staff followed clinical guidelines and quality standards appropriate to the service, including protocols for visiting children and other patient groups which reflected their cultural needs. Staff were trained in their roles and supported to maintain and update their skills.

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

All staff worked well together as a team to benefit patients. They supported each other to provide good care and an effective service. Staff reported a healthy working environment and we saw and heard examples of effective team working based on mutual respect and trust. Staff worked closely to enable patients to have a prompt diagnosis and treatment pathway. If they identified concerns from scans, these were discussed with the patient in a sensitive and caring way.

The service was staffed by a small team that provided a positive, supportive, and inclusive working culture. Staff members we interviewed all said they enjoyed working in the service and described working there as ‘like a family’ with strongly developed relationships, trust, and respect. The directors of the service actively promoted staff wellbeing, engagement, and open communication through regular team meetings, shared learning, reflection, and continuous improvement.

We saw staff had regular formal and informal one-to-one meetings and appraisals, providing opportunities for staff to raise concerns, reflect on performance, and contribute ideas. All staff said the directors of the service were available to discuss any issues ensuring they felt heard and supported. The service often held team building activities and social outings outside of work, strengthening relationships and morale - all staff said they felt valued and supported. Staff told us they felt comfortable speaking up, sharing ideas, and raising concerns without fear.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always 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, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Advice packs and booklets were provided to all patients for maintaining health during pregnancy. Advice was available on managing anxiety for new mothers and assurance through the provision of fetal well-being checks to protect and care for the unborn baby. The service provided pregnancy packages to support the prospective mother and baby through their development. Each package provided essential information about the health and well-being of the unborn baby.

We saw leaflets and posters displayed within the clinic signposting patients to other services. For example, these included ‘how to find an early pregnancy unit’ for women with problems in early pregnancy, and also treatment for women with complications such as miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Further information was provided signposting to support for prostate cancer, mental health, diet during pregnancy, safe sleep and breast checks for example. The service promoted local safeguarding services, although at the time of inspection these referred to a neighbouring safeguarding board.

The service had a range of information on its website detailing the different scans offered, such as those for non-invasive prenatal testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service had a quality assurance process in place to ensure all procedures were followed correctly and consistently by all staff. As part of this process quality checks were completed on each member of staff and recorded.

Clinical checks measured image quality, image optimization, ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) minimizing exposure principles, technical assessment, and re-scan rates. One clinical quality check was completed and peer reviewed on each sonographer each month. All clinical quality checks were completed by a senior sonographer. Quality check outcomes were discussed with the relevant member of staff where applicable.

Depending on feedback, additional training or refresher sessions were arranged where necessary. If feedback was to the detriment of the patient, a re-scan would be arranged with another sonographer. Re-scan rates were monitored through the booking system and reviewed by managers; these showed a very low rate of re-scan.

Quality assurance checks were completed for the scans undertaken by the sonographer and these were peer reviewed. We saw all scans had been recorded as ‘pass’, ‘good scan’ or ‘excellent scan’. There were no failed scans identified through the peer review process. The peer review of phlebotomy tests showed all had been recorded as ‘pass’.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights as to consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their treatment and understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care. Consent was sought in writing and included discussion about the benefits, potential complications, the risks and alternative options.

Staff understood how and when to assess whether a patient had the capacity to make decisions about their care and followed the service policy related to consent and mental capacity (January 2026). The policy confirmed consent must always be informed, voluntary, and given by a person with capacity. Written consent was obtained prior to the scan service through booking forms and the associated terms and conditions. Verbal consent was re-confirmed by the sonographer or phlebotomist before procedure. Patients were given the opportunity to ask questions and withdraw consent at any time. We observed staff seeking consent before treatment.

Interpretation facilities were available to support patients to give informed consent. We saw staff gaining permission before sharing patient information with family or friends. All staff received and kept up to date with training in the Mental Capacity Act and knew where to access current policies.