The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

4Dbabyface

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

93 High Street, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 7AY (01952) 813655

Provided and run by:
Perry & Williamson Limited

All Inspections

19 May 2021

During a routine inspection

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for women and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect women from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to women, acted on them and kept good records. The service knew how to manage safety incidents. The service put safety of women before profit.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of women, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Staff were fully committed to working in partnership with people and making the experience special for each person. Women really felt cared for and that they and their baby mattered.
  • People were respected and valued as individuals and are empowered as partners in their care. There was a strong person-centred culture and staff were highly motivated and inspired to offer care that is kind and promotes dignity. Staff treated women with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to women and families.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of women’s individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. Feedback from people who use the services was consistently positive about the way staff treat women. People could access the service when they needed it and were provided with a report and images to take home with them.
  • Staff demonstrated shared values in their work. The service shared a philosophy of care statement with women which was made visible in the waiting area.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of women receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with women to plan their care and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • Although managers and staff were aware of the vision for the service, there was no written strategy for the service, outlining plans for the next year or longer.
  • The service used refillable bottles for dispensing ultrasound scan gel but did not have a protocol to ensure best practice. The service used appropriate methods and products to clean probes but did not have a protocol to outline the correct procedure. The service amended their infection control policy immediately after our inspection. This now outlines in full, the correct process for decontamination of probes and guidelines to prevent gel standing for long periods.
  • Although staff understood the role of chaperone, there was no chaperone policy or protocol to guide staff in this role. The service implemented a chaperone policy immediately after our inspection.
  • The service did not have a performance management policy to support staff who were underperforming. The service implemented a performance policy immediately after our inspection.
  • Although the service asked all women if they were over 18 years when booking an appointment, their ID was not formally checked.

11 December 2018

During a routine inspection

4Dbabyface is operated by Perry & Williamson Limited. Facilities include one consultation room and one reception area.

The service comes under the diagnostic imaging core service but they undertake baby keepsakes as the sole activity which are not diagnostic.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We undertook an unannounced inspection on 11 December 2018. ‘To get to the heart of women’s experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Services we rate

We rated it as Requires improvement overall.

We found areas of practice that required improvement:

  • The service did not have a system to track what mandatory training staff had completed.

  • The service did not have someone with level three safeguarding training.

  • The service did not have all the required policies in place.

  • The service did not have a written process for staff to follow if a woman or visitor deteriorated.

  • Staff did not receive documented yearly appraisals.

  • The service did not offer Mental Capacity Act training.

  • The service did not have any non-English information leaflets or access to a translation service.

  • The service had not updated its fire risk assessment.

  • The service did not undertake any audits.

  • The registered manager did not have information governance training.

We found good practice:

  • The service had appropriate staffing levels in place for the amount of women they scanned. The sonographer had the appropriate mandatory training in place.

  • The service had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well. Staff kept themselves, the premises and equipment clean.

  • The different kinds of staff within the service worked together as a team to benefit women.

  • A Staff at the service treated women with kindness and compassion. Staff provided support for women in times of emotional distress.

  • The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of women and they could access the service when they wanted to.

  • The service engaged well with women, staff, the public to plan and manage its service.

  • The registered manager promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values. Staff told us the manager was always approachable with any issues.

21 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We met with four people who had received a service on the day of our inspection. They told us that they had all been very happy with their experience. They spoke positively about the information that they received and the professionalism of the sonographer (the person who carried out the scan). People told us that they felt involved in the process. They said that they were able to ask questions, all of which were answered fully. They told us that their dignity and confidentiality had been maintained at all times. Staff told us how the achieved this.

Staff told us how they responded sensitively to people when they had not had the outcome that they wanted. They also told us how they worked with health care professionals when people needed further consultation.

The environment was clean and hygienic. All appropriate checks had been carried out toe sure equipment was well maintained. Although the clinic did not have disabled access, the provider alerted people to this on their website and by word of mouth when people booked appointments.

The staff team was very small. Everyone felt that they worked well as a team to ensure people received a good service.

We saw that there was a complaints procedure in place. There had been no complaints about the service and staff told us how customer satisfaction was very important to them. They told us how they resolved issues before they became complaints.