Baby I Love You Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The service had developed a vision ‘To be a leading, trusted provider of obstetric, men’s and women’s health services, delivering high-quality ultrasound scans, blood testing and holistic care.’ The vision identified the ambition to expand ‘…into specialist services including menopause support, physiotherapy, and wider wellbeing partnerships.’

The strategic plan to achieve this relied upon strong core values (for example, person-centred care, inclusion and innovation), workforce engagement, culture, staff feedback, measurable key performance indicators and evidence of implementation.

Staff we spoke to fully understood the vision and the methods to achieve its goals. They were engaged with the vision and strategy through being involved in ongoing discussions through team meetings, supervision and daily communication from service managers. This was evidenced through team meetings discussing strategy and service development, as well as staff supervision and engagement records.

Feedback from patients confirmed the vision was embedded into practice and reflected in service delivery.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

During this inspection we met with the two directors and owners of the service, one had taken on the role of registered manager since the service began. They were fully committed to providing a good service for patients and displayed the philosophy this would be better achieved through developing an effective team.

The directors had the skills, knowledge and experience to undertake their roles and had a good understanding of the service and were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Staff told us they felt well supported to develop their skills and all spoke of the positive working environment. Managers had taken concerns raised by patients seriously and promoted a positive culture in the service. Managers were available at this location and also the partner clinic, to assess how the service was running.

Staff told us managers were visible and approachable for themselves and patients, that they understood where the service is going, were involved in decisions and felt valued.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had a whistleblowing policy in place for staff to raise concerns where the interests of patients and colleagues, or that of the company were at risk. Staff told us they were very comfortable in raising general or low risk issues with the registered manager or their fellow director. The policy provided ‘…a clear framework for staff to raise concerns about wrongdoing, unsafe practice, or risks to service users, staff, or the public.’ The service was committed to ‘…encourage a culture where staff feel safe, supported, and confident to speak up without fear.’

The policy applied to all employees and covered for example, patient safety and care quality, safeguarding issues, breaches of regulations, health and safety risks, data breaches. The service was determined to take all concerns seriously, treat them confidentially and sensitively, protect individuals from victimisation, harassment and detriment, investigate fairly and act on findings and improve practice.

The service confirmed staff were able to speak to someone independent of line management if preferred and provided access to an independent contact, ensuring staff had different routes to raise concerns. Staff were encouraged to speak to a senior colleague of their choice or use an independent speak-up route if preferred, such as the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS).

Staff told us they had no concerns about raising issues with managers within the service and believed they would be treated fairly. They told us they had not witnessed or were aware of any bullying, harassment, or victimisation within the service. Patients were encouraged to give feedback through direct contact with the service, feedback and comments through a suggestion box within the service and the service complaints process.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Managers were vigilant to remove bias from practices to ensure equality of opportunity and experience for staff within the workplace, and throughout their employment. An example of this was the sponsorship of a member of staff from a different country. Staff told us they had opportunities to apply for development opportunities, new roles and to undertake external qualifications.

Staff told us the service prevented bullying and harassment at all levels and for all staff. This was achieved through a clear focus on treating everyone fairly and assuring staff they would be able to report inappropriate behaviour or attitudes.

We were assured through discussions with managers and staff that those with disabilities or other needs would be offered reasonable adjustments to support them to carry out their roles well. For example, we were told staff were able to request flexibility in their working agreements to account for personal circumstances such as caring responsibilities and health issues.

The service was committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion, ensuring all staff felt valued, respected and supported in their roles, differences were celebrated, and individuals empowered to contribute their skills and experiences. We saw robust recruitment processes were in place ensuring fairness and transparency. All staff completed an equal opportunities monitoring form prior to commencing employment, evidenced in personnel files. Training in equality, diversity and human rights was mandatory for all staff and refreshed regularly, supporting staff to deliver inclusive care and strengthen positive working relationships within the workforce.

We found managers and staff reflected a positive culture of fairness, inclusion and respect, which enhanced the quality of care provided and supported positive outcomes for all patients.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

The service was managed by a registered manager and a fellow director. Regular meetings were held by senior management of the service; minutes of these meetings showed the directors reviewed performance, accounts, services, complaints, staffing and workforce wellbeing, audits and risk assessments, infection prevention and control, and safeguarding.

Meetings with staff were held on a three monthly basis and discussed general medical services and increasing awareness with patients, progress with blood testing and maintaining good standards in both care and accuracy. These meetings also reviewed complaints and key learning points, increasing the social media profile of the service, clear communication, policies, and staff wellbeing.

The service had policies in place which identified audit checks to be carried out, such environmental, health and safety, information governance, physical security, and patient record forms. Policies were comprehensive, reflected the needs of the service and patients, and all had been updated in January 2026.

We discussed the risk register in place which recorded risks dating back to 2020. The registered manager agreed these needed to be rationalised to show only ‘live’ risks and those that had been mitigated would be archived. The service had a business continuity policy and processes in place to cope with unexpected events; the service had not reported any data breaches and systems were secure. Patient identifiable information was handled correctly.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and managers at the service collaborated with relevant external stakeholders and agencies to improve care and treatment for patients using the service. For example, the service displayed posters within the clinic for a charity promoting the improvement of lives for single parents.

Further information was available for a grant making trust to fund projects and provide financial support to relieve the needs of people who are suffering from, or have been affected by breast cancer, as well as a network providing independent breastfeeding support and information.

Managers and staff actively and openly engaged with patients, staff, the public and local organisations to plan and manage services. The service engaged with and supported local organisations such as South Tyneside Period Dignity Scheme, LifeCycles (South Tyneside Talking Services), as well as local football teams.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

We saw staff were committed to improving services through processes for learning when things went wrong or of good practice. Managers we spoke with had a good understanding of quality improvement methods and experience of implementing change within the service.

The service provided a report giving evidence of ongoing innovation, service development, and community engagement. Initiatives demonstrated a commitment to improving patient experience, expanding services, and delivering measurable outcomes. Examples of this were through raising money for a charity that supported bereaved families, fundraising for a different charity dedicated to supporting families and loved ones who had lost someone to suicide, and the expansion of services offered – general medical ultrasound, phlebotomy services.

Staff were supported to have the time to develop their skills and to pursue areas of interest in the service. Managers were receptive to innovation and participation from staff to develop ideas to expand the service and meet the needs of patients.