Early Days Baby Scan Ltd

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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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.

At our last assessment we did not rate this key question. At this assessment the rating is 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.

The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Both staff worked together to ensure appointments were booked in line with the provider's eligibility criteria. Prior to each clinic, they reviewed booking forms for any information that may affect the suitability of the appointment. Staff gave examples of contacting people before their appointment to discuss whether the service was appropriate for their needs.

Individual assessments were carried out using historic and current information, for example previous miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or current hypertension. There were clear actions for staff to follow depending on the issues identified, and people were signposted to other services when required.

The provider accepted bookings for people aged under 18 years. Staff undertook additional checks to ensure appointments were appropriate and that safeguarding considerations were explored. The provider had processes in place to identify and respond to any safeguarding concerns and signpost young people to appropriate support services where needed.

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.

The scan practitioner was a member of the British Medical Ultrasound Society (BMUS) and received regular updates regarding guidance. The scan practitioner was a registered midwife and although not practising as a midwife within the service, maintained the competencies required to retain professional registration.

Staff reviewed National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance and amended practice in line with current recommendations. For example, the process for making onward referrals when there was no heartbeat detected had been revised to align with NICE guidance. This supported joined up working with the local NHS maternity unit and reduced the risk of unnecessary referrals.

Although the scan practitioner kept up to date with professional guidance, opportunities for peer review and external scrutiny of scan practice were limited due to the service operating with a sole scan practitioner. This is detailed further under the Safe and Effective Staffing quality statement.

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.

The service was operated by two staff members who worked closely together to deliver care. Both described regular communication and a shared approach to providing services, which helped ensure continuity and consistency for people using the service.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of their respective roles and responsibilities and worked collaboratively to ensure appointments were delivered effectively. The small size of the service supported effective communication and enabled staff to discuss any concerns or operational matters promptly.

The service maintained positive working relationships with local maternity and early pregnancy services. Staff understood the role of the service within the wider maternity pathway and recognised when people may require referral or additional support from NHS services. This helped ensure people could access appropriate care when needed.

The service 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, reduced their future needs for care and support.

The service supported people to make informed decisions about their pregnancy through the provision of baby scanning, blood testing and screening services. Staff provided information about the scans and tests offered, enabling people to understand the purpose and limitations of the service.

Staff understood the service's role within the wider maternity pathway and encouraged people to continue accessing routine NHS maternity care. Where appropriate, people were signposted to NHS services for further assessment or support.

Although the service was not a diagnostic provider, staff recognised when people might require additional advice or clinical input and understood the importance of seeking support from relevant healthcare professionals. This helped people access appropriate care during their pregnancy.

People were able to identify any existing health conditions, concerns or additional needs during the booking process and throughout their interactions with the scan practitioner. Staff used this information to understand people's circumstances and ensure services were delivered appropriately.

Although the service did not provide healthcare advice as part of its remit, staff understood when concerns fell outside the scope of the service. Staff recognised when people may benefit from additional support and appropriately directed or referred them to relevant healthcare professionals for assessment, advice and ongoing care.

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 an annual audit schedule which included monitoring appointment waiting times, consent form completion, hand hygiene compliance and scan duration. Audit activity was undertaken at frequencies determined by the type of audit and findings were reviewed to identify areas for improvement and support service development.

Although the nature of the service limited opportunities to measure longer-term clinical outcomes, the provider monitored a range of quality and performance indicators to ensure people received safe, timely and effective care. This included oversight of appointment availability, completion of required documentation and compliance with infection prevention and control procedures.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff took all practical steps to enable patients to make their own decisions. The services website provided details on the nature of each scan and the timescale at which it was appropriate to book for each scan. 

The website provided detail on the process for blood tests. Staff told us the laboratories used for blood testing would not process the request without completed consent forms.

Staff were able to describe the process for assessing capacity and explained they would not carry out a scan or take bloods if a person did not have capacity to consent although this situation had not arisen.