Window to the Womb

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Patients were safe and protected from avoidable harm. The service had a positive learning culture and staff and patients could raise concerns. They assessed patient risks and made sure there was continuity of care, though effective record keeping. There were enough staff with the right skills, qualifications and experience to ensure high quality care and treatment. We found recruitment processes met national guidance. The facilities and equipment were visibly clean and well-maintained. Any potential risks in the care environment were identified, managed, and sufficiently mitigated.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The service was exceptional at treating people with kindness, empathy and compassion and in how they respected people’s privacy and dignity. Staff always treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff treated people with kindness, compassion, and respect. Feedback from people who used the service consistently described staff as caring and friendly. Comments included, “It was really lovely. All the staff were so friendly and kind.” “I’m so grateful and relieved, they made us feel looked after straight away.” “We had to go out for a walk to get the baby to turn and the ladies made us feel so cared for. Nothing was a problem.” Family members told us: “We felt welcome from the start”.

We saw that communication was tailored and compassionate. The clinical lead and registered manager worked with staff to ensure communication was appropriate to each individual and situation. Staff embedded learning from national incidents and complaints to improve practice and ensure effective, caring interactions.

People were supported to provide feedback through various channels, including online platforms and direct communication with staff. Inspectors received positive feedback during the visit and observed further comments on the provider’s website and review platforms. Staff reviewed this feedback and used it to inform service improvement plans. We observed staff responding to feedback in a timely way. They were compassionate and kind in their responses.

Staff demonstrated a strong commitment to compassionate care. The manager and staff emphasised the importance of treating people and their families with dignity. Staff recognised the emotional significance of scan experiences and aimed to make them memorable. All staff spoken with were caring and committed to delivering safe, respectful care. They explained how they maintained privacy and dignity during procedures and understood individual needs, including cultural and religious considerations. Staff felt confident to raise concerns about inappropriate behaviour without fear of reprisal.

People told us interactions were respectful and unhurried. Consultations were scheduled to allow time for meaningful engagement. We observed that staff offered emotional support and advice when needed. Inspectors observed warm and kind greetings, with families guided to areas to relax before scans. The clinic’s spacious layout supported privacy, even for larger groups. The service had considered the needs of people attending with young children.

Sonographers worked sensitively and flexibly. Staff built rapport and respected people’s dignity. When optimal images could not be obtained due to fetal positioning, we saw sonographers offered strategies such as walking or light exercise. People were invited to return for a free rescan if needed. We observed scan assistants explaining procedures clearly and engaged positively with people.

We saw compassionate care throughout the patient journey. From arrival to departure, staff communicated clearly and gave families opportunities to ask questions. Thank you cards praised staff for their kindness.

The service supported people receiving difficult news. A dedicated quiet room provided privacy for people and families receiving distressing information. We saw evidence that staff had completed training in breaking bad news as part of their induction, ensuring sensitive and supportive communication.

We saw evidence of regular Care and Service Assessments carried out internally by staff. All assessments showed positive results with comments from people and families that they had a very positive experience with friendly and helpful staff. People and families we spoke with made very positive comments about staff and experiences. One family told us this was their second baby, and “this experience has been even better than the first time”. They were particularly moved by the way the sibling had been involved in the scan process and throughout the appointment.

The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff delivered person-centred care that respected individual needs and preferences. We observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service. Staff took time to explain procedures and demonstrated a clear understanding of each person’s needs. Families reported that packages were tailored to their preferences, including frequency and type of care.

The service was inclusive and responsive to individual needs. Staff made reasonable adjustments to support access to services. People completed pre-scan questionnaires to declare any adjustments required for safe and comfortable attendance. Managers ensured access to interpreters and signers when needed, using third-party translation services. All staff completed equality and diversity training, supporting care delivery in line with the provider’s diversity policy. Policies were in place to ensure people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act (2010) received care, free from bias.

We observed staff recognising and responding to individual needs. The service signposted women to specialist pregnancy and miscarriage charities and online support groups. Referral questionnaires were reviewed regularly to ensure follow-up care met individual needs. Women were routinely asked how the service could support them after receiving difficult news. The provider sought guidance from the Miscarriage Association to ensure women were adequately supported and informed of their options.

Staff told us they provided emotional support and advice to people who used the service and their families when needed. The service proactively ensured emotional support was available throughout the care journey. It was evident during inspection that people and their families were welcomed at every stage of pregnancy and beyond and records showed they offered the same welcome to those attending general health scans and blood tests.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People told us they were satisfied with the range of maternity-related personalised items available. Women were able to select scan images immediately after their appointment, which were printed as part of presentation packages. A variety of photo frames, toys, and audio keepsakes were available to customise scan photos and heartbeat recordings. Staff involved younger siblings and family members during this process to ensure inclusivity.

Managers and staff balanced commercial aspects of the service without exploiting women’s emotional vulnerability. While products were displayed in the waiting area, staff did not apply sales pressure. Staff understood their role in promoting items appropriately.

People were supported in making informed decisions about their care. People were given referral options, and where necessary, the sonographer liaised with NHS hospitals further afield.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

In addition to pregnancy scans, the service offered general health scans, blood tests and hormone function assessments. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service was effective in meeting people’s needs and people who used the service told us it met their expectations.

When pregnancy scans indicated abnormal findings, the sonographer explained the results to the woman and her family in the scan room and arranged referrals to NHS services. Staff offered follow-up contact approximately one week later to check on the wellbeing of the parents. People were asked if they wished to receive this follow-up, and staff reported that most agreed. Staff provided ultrasound reports following general health scans. Reports we viewed were detailed and included information on any areas for concern and recommendations for clinical review. In these cases, people were advised to share the report with their GP or healthcare provider without delay.

The service was sensitive to the emotional needs of people. Separate sessions were held for Window to the Womb later pregnancy scans and early pregnancy scans. This helped to ensure that women who may have experienced previous miscarriage or anxiety about their pregnancy did not share waiting areas with those in later stages of pregnancy. General health scans were planned and carried out on separate days from pregnancy scans.

We observed staff refunding a woman who had emailed to explain she had experienced a pregnancy loss before her booked appointment. They responded with empathy and asked for bank details to process the refund.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us their wellbeing was prioritised to support high-quality care. The service fostered a supportive and inclusive environment, with staff reporting they felt valued and encouraged to contribute to service improvements.

Emotional support for staff was embedded in the service. Staff had access to an external agency offering support across financial, legal, and therapeutic topics. The registered manager conducted informal wellbeing check ins within the team and provided staff with a wellbeing survey.

Staff described manageable workloads and a collaborative team culture. Training and support were discussed weekly, and daily handovers included team briefs and shared learning. We saw evidence that staff received regular appraisals and ongoing communication from managers via multiple channels.

Staff reported a good work/life balance and felt able to raise wellbeing concerns with colleagues and managers. They also told us that directors encouraged innovation and new ideas. Staff told us they felt supported and cared for by their team and that leaders genuinely cared about the staff as much as the people using the service. “It isn’t just a business”. “I enjoy my work every day.” Leaders told us staff were involved in regular team building activities supported by the directors and registered managers.