Baby I Love You Limited

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 the service met people’s needs. 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.

This was the first rated assessment for this service since 2019. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff were focussed on providing a service which considered individual needs and preferences and had a commitment to making reasonable adjustments for patient access. We saw staff explained all procedures very clearly and consistently throughout all procedures. Staff were responsive to the needs of individual patients and made decisions on the relevance of individual needs.

All patients were informed and knew the costs of their treatment. Staff were responsive to the needs of service users and decisions were made which ensured focus was on the relevance of individuals’ care and treatment. Supporting the needs and preferences of service users was important for the service and the service supported staff in making decisions based on the needs of the patient.

The scanning room was separate and accessible from the reception and waiting areas, seating and toilet facilities were available for patients, family members and visitors. There was an area with games for children and young people.

We reviewed patient records to assess how staff gave choice and involved individuals in decisions. Patient communication needs were identified, and documentation was provided in accessible formats such as large print, easy read, and Braille when needed. The service arranged signers and translation services when needed or requested.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

A comprehensive patient pathway had been developed for patients requesting a baby scan or blood testing services. Patients access to services was through the service website, referrals, or direct enquiry; service details. Preparation guidance, pricing, and eligibility were available prior to booking; this could be done by telephone, email, or an online contact form. Patients followed preparation instructions, for example hydration and were encouraged to bring their relevant medical history.

On arrival the patient’s identity and contact details were confirmed, consent obtained and relevant medical history, allergies, and concerns were reviewed. Ultrasound scans were performed by a qualified sonographer in a private room, and blood tests undertaken by trained staff following infection prevention and control procedures. Patient comfort and wellbeing were monitored throughout the appointment.

If a patient felt unwell at any stage, they remained under the care of the clinic and were monitored until well enough to leave. We saw the service had processes in place to escalate patients to local health services if needed.

Scan findings were explained where appropriate and a written report provided; blood test results were available within a maximum of 7 working days. Patients were advised to discuss results with their GP. Urgent or significant findings showing an abnormality were escalated through the private ultrasound provider pathway developed by the North East and Cumbria Maternity Clinical Network. This was done following patient consent.

We saw all consent documentation, reports, and results were securely stored in line with data protection and clinical governance requirements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had a diversity, equality and human rights policy in place which committed the service to ensuring that all services were accessible and inclusive for individuals with disabilities. Examples were given of making reasonable adjustments to the environment, equipment or working practices, providing information in accessible formats, supporting communication needs, including working with families, advocates or professionals where required and considering mobility, sensory and cognitive needs.

The service identified and recorded the communication needs of patients. It used this information to meet the individual needs of patients through providing information in accessible formats, such as large print, easy read and Braille on request. We saw facilities were available to provide British Sign Language interpreters and translation services.

These arrangements were supported by all staff giving clear verbal explanations during procedures and making reasonable adjustments to support individual access needs. Adjustments included needs related to religious beliefs, race, disability, gender, marital or civil partnership status, sexual orientation.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had a complaints process in place; this involved the commitment to learn from patient’s experiences and meet their needs and expectations, and regulatory requirements. The service recognised the need to address concerns promptly, fairly and effectively in a timely manner. The policy defined a complaint as ‘…any expression of dissatisfaction, whether justified or not, about any aspect of our services or members of staff.’

The registered manager had overall responsibility for dealing with all complaints, however it was accepted all staff could be approached at any time where patients wished to complain and they must immediately make the registered manager aware.

Stages to resolve a complaint had been developed, for example local resolution, recorded in the complaints log, acknowledged within 3 working days, and a full written response provided within 20 working days (where this is not possible, a progress update provided with a revised timescale). If the complainant was not satisfied with the outcome a review could be requested and referral to the Independent Healthcare Sector Complaints Adjudication Service.

We reviewed the service complaints log which documented two concerns/complaints in the twelve months before inspection. These had both been reviewed, investigated and a resolution offered to the patient. We saw the correspondence with the patients showed empathy, gave an outline of the circumstances and provided an outcome acceptable to the patient. Each concern led to learning outcomes for the service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it.

All patients were able to access the service easily. Reasonable adjustments were met for patients on an individual basis, for example bariatric equipment. Reception staff recorded individual needs and ensured these were passed to clinical staff.

The service had car parking facilities immediately outside the clinic. It was possible for patients to arrange for a car parking space, if necessary, this assisted patients with mobility needs. All religious, cultural and language needs were met, and these needs were recorded at the time of booking. We saw there was sufficient room within the clinic to accommodate a number of patients, their partners and other family members at the same time. The service offered refreshment to patients

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

We saw the service responded to each individual’s clinical needs appropriately and this was extended to the emotional wellbeing of each patient. Patients were listened to, supported, and given the time they needed to feel comfortable and in control. This ensured a high-quality experience and built trust with patients.

Feedback and observation demonstrated patients valued the overall approach the service had to all their patients. Patients we spoke to said this was a main reason why they had returned to the service a number of times. We were told all staff were responsive to their needs, with many choosing the service because they were seen quickly, treated with understanding, and supported at times of need.

All patients said they were fully involved in all decisions about their care, respecting individual preferences, and adapting communication and approach to meet their needs, including cultural, emotional, and accessibility requirements. Feedback was actively encouraged and used to continuously improve the service.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.