HELLO BABY

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.

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

The service was responsive to the needs of the women offering flexible appointment options. Staff demonstrated awareness of women’s preferences. Women were given appropriate information before and after their visit and feedback mechanisms were in place.

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.

The service made it clear on their website, service documentation and acceptance policy that only women 18 years and above were able to use the service.

The service had clear information and guidance regarding women’s care and treatment options, including any associated risks and benefits to the services offered. Women were informed scans were to not to replace their NHS hospital scans and that it was very important that they still attended their NHS appointments to check the health and wellbeing of the woman and her baby.

Appointments could be booked online 24 hours a day, seven days a week via the provider’s electronic booking system. The registered manager planned and organised services to meet the demand of the services safely. Staff monitored cancellations, if a woman did not attend their appointment, they contacted them to check on their wellbeing and rebooked the scan when required.

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.

Appointments were arranged via telephone, online social media platforms, or the service’s website. The website contained clear and accessible information about the packages available. The service offered early dating scans, early gender scans, 2D, 4D and HD live ultrasound scans. Pricing was transparent and displayed clearly, ensuring women could make informed choices before booking. There was also a frequently asked questions section available on the website to support people’s understanding and provision of the service.

The waiting area was clean and provided a suitable environment for women and relatives. There were accessible toilets and baby changing facilities, a children’s waiting area where children could play with toys or watch DVDs.

The clinic was easily accessible by public transport; there was a public car park and free parking available on nearby streets. The service provided travel information on its website.

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’s website provided information and advice that was accurate and up-to-date. It was provided in a way that women understood and met their communication needs. Information was accessible, safe and secure and supported their rights and choices. The frequently asked questions section of the website addressed both general pregnancy queries, specific questions related to scans and the service.

The service ensured that key information was publicly available, including clear details of the services provided, operating hours, contact information, and how people could access the service.

Translation services were available to people whose first language was not English. If interpreters were required, this was identified during the online and telephone booking process. We also saw evidence that the website offered information in several languages.

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’s website provided clear information on how women and their families could give feedback, raise concerns or make complaints. This encouraged and supported people to provide feedback about their care, ensuring their voices were heard and valued. People gave feedback and made complaints either online, through social media or directly to the provider. We saw a complaints policy displayed in the clinic. Social media feedback was consistently good for the service.

The service logged complaints to identify areas for learning. We reviewed the complaints log which recorded the number of complaints received, response times, and time taken to close complaints. The service had received 4 complaints in the past 12 months. Each review documented clear actions taken and resolutions achieved. In one complaint review, we noted that a policy was amended in response to actions identified through the complaints review process.

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.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for people if required, for example, people with mobility issues. Women were encouraged to share this information with the service when using the online booking system and answering relevant questions.

Women, self-referred, self-funded and selected appointment dates and times that suited their schedules. We saw staff took steps to ensure women were not left waiting unnecessarily and always explained any delays to appointments. This supported a positive and inclusive patient experience. The service ensured there was enough time for women to ask questions during their appointments.

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.

Decisions relating to a woman’s care were made in a way that promoted equality and avoided discrimination, including in relation to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Staff underwent equality and diversity training as part of their mandatory training.

The service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. This is shown in the positive feedback on the service’s website.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

The Service focused on providing reassurance and emotional support to women at key stages of their pregnancy journey. We saw evidence of this on the service’s website where women were signposted to external organisations that could meet their needs. Staff demonstrated good awareness of available support and ensured people were not left without guidance.

Women reported feeling well supported and valued during their appointments. Many chose to remain in contact with the clinic after their scans and often shared photographs of their babies with staff. This reflected the strong rapport staff built with women using the service and the positive, trusting relationships developed over time.