The Fetal Medicine Centre

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

We looked for evidence that people using the service were always treated with respect, kindness and compassion. We checked that patients’ privacy and dignity were respected and that person-centred care was central to the service, with staff demonstrating cultural competence. Patients described their overall experience of the service as excellent.

At our last assessment we rated this key question outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 respected people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff consistently demonstrated a caring and person-centred approach, during our observations, staff spoke with people respectfully, gave them time to ask questions and involved families where this was the person’s preference when interacting with patients and their families. We observed staff greeted all patients warmly, took time to understand their circumstances and ensured they felt supported throughout their appointments. Patients described staff as empathetic, respectful and caring and told us they felt listened to and valued. One patient who had experienced previous pregnancy loss described how staff had supported them through their care and provided reassurance, information and emotional support during difficult periods.

Staff showed sensitivity when supporting patients who were anxious or received distressing news. Patients told us they did not feel rushed and had enough time to discuss their concerns and ask questions. We observed staff ensure patients who receive difficult or unexpected results had privacy away from other patients. Staff remained available to answer questions, explain findings and provide emotional support. The service protected people's privacy and dignity by giving patients and their families time and space to process information and consider decisions about their care.

Patients always knew who to contact if they had concerns after their appointments. Staff told us patients could contact the service following scans, particularly when abnormal findings had been identified, to receive further advice and support. Patients told us they felt comfortable contacting the service and were confident staff would help them.

Patient feedback was consistently positive. We reviewed 21 patient questionnaires completed between April and July 2026. All responses on the questionnaire were positive, with patients selecting either agree or strongly agree. We saw evidence that provider collated feedback from patients as far back as 2018. All of which demonstrated positive experiences of care and that the provider consistently treated patients with empathy and kindness. Patients also told us they attended the service following recommendations from family friends or healthcare professionals. The provider demonstrated that patients returned to the service over several years. Patient feedback, interviews and observations provided consistent evidence that staff treated people with kindness, compassion and respect.

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.

The service treated patients as individuals and adapted care and treatment to meet their needs and preferences. Patients had flexibility when arranging appointments with a range of appointment times available to meet their circumstances. Staff told us they accommodated urgent requests where possible. Patients told us they could access appointments at times which met their needs.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to support patients’ physical access to the service. Consultation and treatment rooms were accessible to wheelchair users; there was lift access and patient areas were located on one level. Staff understood the importance of adapting care to patients’ individual circumstances.

Staff adapted their approach according to patients’ individual emotional needs. We observed staff provide additional time and privacy to patients who were anxious or received difficult news. Patients had time to ask questions and discuss their individual circumstances with staff.

Staff made efforts to support patients with different communication needs. Many clinical staff spoke more than one language and could communicate directly with some patients in their preferred language. Staff told us some patients attending through embassies were accompanied by an interpreter or representative who supported communication. However, although the service could access telephone interpreters when required, most staff we spoke with were not aware of this provision. Patient information leaflets available at the service were also in English and we did not see evidence that written information was routinely available in alternative languages.

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

Patients were supported to make informed decisions and had choices and control over their care and treatment. Patients received information about their chosen scan or procedure before attending the service. Information about costs was available on the service's website and was also provided by e-mail after an appointment was booked. Payment was made after patients attended their appointment. This meant patients had information about the service and associated costs before receiving care and treatment.

Patients told us staff explained procedures clearly and gave them enough time to ask questions during appointments. Staff were observed explaining scan findings, their implications and possible next steps in detail. Staff took time to answer questions and supported patients to participate in decisions about their care. There were arrangements for patients who required urgent specialist investigations or interventions to be seen within 24 hours for example where there was a major fetal abnormality and the parents request a termination of the pregnancy.

Patients had control over who was involved in their care. Patients told us it was their choice whether a partner family member or other person was present during their appointment. Staff respected these choices and supported patients to involve people important to them where they wished to do so.

Staff supported patients to understand the options available following their scan. Where further care or assessment was required, staff explained that patients could return to their NHS Trust or GP, where appropriate. Patients could also choose to return to the service for further scans during their pregnancy. Staff explained the available options rather than directing patients to continue receiving private care from the service. This supported patients to make informed choices about where they received their ongoing care.

Patients attending the service were supported to make informed decisions. Staff sought patients’ consent before providing care and treatment. Records we reviewed contained signed consent forms, and we observed staff seeking consent again before starting procedures. This provided evidence that staff checked consent during appointments as well as documenting consent in records. However, limited staff awareness of interpreter access reduced assurance that people with limited English could consistently understand information and make informed decisions.

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.

Staff listened to patients and responded to their immediate needs, concerns and wishes. We observed staff regularly checked that patients were comfortable during scans and adapted their approach in response to patients’ questions and needs. For example, adjusting the pressure of ultrasound probes when performing the scan in response to patient feedback. Clinicians explained specific findings as scans progressed and, when patients asked questions, took time to explain the information again and checked they understood. Staff asked whether patients had any further questions and ensured they were comfortable with the information provided.

The service deliberately planned appointment times to give staff flexibility to respond to patients’ needs without rushing them. Staff told us a basic scan could take between 15 and 20 minutes, but appointments were allocated 30 minutes. This allowed additional time if patients needed further explanation, reassurance or support, including when unexpected findings were identified. It also reduced the impact on other patients when appointments needed to run for longer than expected.

Staff told us when an appointment needed to run longer, other patients were informed there was a delay without disclosing confidential information about the patient whose appointment had overrun. Patients told us they did not feel rushed and had enough time to discuss concerns and ask questions.

Staff responded sensitively when patients received unexpected or difficult findings. One patient told us about their experience of receiving difficult and unexpected news during previous appointments at the service. They described how staff treated them with kindness and empathy, gave them time to process the information they had received and supported them to consider their next steps. Staff told us patients receiving difficult news were provided with privacy and time to process information and staff remained available to answer questions and provide reassurance.

Staff responded when patients needed further care or support. Where scans revealed concerns and further assessment or treatment was required, clinicians considered patients’ ongoing pregnancy care arrangements and explained the options available to them. This included referral or signposting to NHS maternity or early pregnancy services, or their GP where appropriate.

We did not observe any patients become anxious or distressed during the assessment. However, we observed staff regularly check patients’ comfort and respond to their questions and concerns throughout scans.

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

The service cared about and promoted staff wellbeing and supported staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff described a positive working environment and told us they enjoyed working as part of the team. Staff described good working relationships with colleagues and managers. Staff said managers were approachable, felt able to raise issues or concerns and were confident these would be listened to and discussed.

Staff described a stable and supportive team. There had been limited recent staff turnover, and the most recently recruited member of staff had joined the service in October 2025.

The provider sought feedback from staff about their experience of working at the service. Staff completed feedback every 6 months and issues raised were followed up through a staff reflection audit and discussed at subsequent meetings. The most recent staff reflection audit had identified 3 actions, such as providing supervised opportunities to build confidence and experience, all of which were planned or ongoing. This provided staff with opportunities to raise concerns about their working environment and for the provider to respond to these.

The provider supported staff’s personal and professional development. Staff were encouraged to develop new skills and had opportunities to use these across different areas of the service. Data we reviewed showed staff received annual appraisals. New staff had reviews after 1 month, 3 months and 6 months before moving to an annual appraisal cycle.

Staff knew how to access support for their wellbeing. Staff told us an employee wellbeing programme was available and knew how to access the programme if they needed support.