The Fetal Medicine Centre

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 people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

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 provider consistently ensured care and treatment choices were person centred and worked with patients and their loved ones to respond to changes in their needs. Care was personalised and consistently tailored to individual circumstances, preferences and concerns. Women described receiving compassionate care from staff who recognised the emotional significance of pregnancy care and adapted support according to their needs.

Patients told us staff took time to explain findings, answer questions and provide reassurance. They told us they felt involved in decisions about their care, understood the options available to them and felt listened to throughout their appointments.

During our observations we saw clinicians explained scan findings in detail, shared images with women and their families and encouraged questions throughout consultations. Staff adjusted appointments to ensure women had sufficient time to discuss concerns and did not feel rushed. Staff recognised when additional emotional support was required and responded sensitively. Where difficult or unexpected findings were identified, women were given privacy and time to process information.

Patient records demonstrated that care and treatment reflected individual clinical needs throughout pregnancy.

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.

The provider worked well with other healthcare professionals and organisations to ensure people experienced coordinated and continuous care. Systems enabled timely communication with referring clinicians and maternity services, supporting continuity across the pregnancy pathway. Women experienced well-coordinated care with clear arrangements for follow-up and onward referral where necessary.

Staff described clear processes for sharing information with obstetricians and maternity providers. Where urgent findings were identified, staff communicated directly with relevant healthcare professionals as well as sending reports to ensure women received timely intervention and follow-up. The service had strong relationships with external specialist fetal medicine services to support seamless transitions between providers when additional expertise or treatment was required.

Patients told us staff explained the next steps following appointments and made clear who they could contact if they had questions or concerns after leaving the service. Staff told us they remained available to provide advice and support after consultations, and patients reported receiving prompt responses when they contacted the service.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Patients told us information was provided before, during and after their appointments. This included information about procedures, appointment arrangements and costs, with information also available on the service website. People consistently described staff as knowledgeable and approachable and said they were given sufficient time to ask questions and receive detailed explanations.

We observed clinicians explained scan findings in detail, discussed screening options, obtained informed consent and ensured people understood the significance of results. We observed compassionate and effective communication, particularly when discussing complex information or supporting women who had experienced previous pregnancy loss or complications.

The provider also demonstrated a commitment to continually improving the way information was shared with people. Leaders reviewed feedback and acted on learning. For example, following feedback relating to the disclosure of fetal sex information, the provider strengthened consent processes to ensure women could clearly state their preferences regarding whether they wished to receive this information. Secure electronic communication systems were used to protect confidentiality while enabling timely access to information and results. These arrangements demonstrated a proactive, person-centred approach to providing information and exceeded what we would ordinarily expect for a good service.

Patients told us staff explained clinical findings, available options, the purpose of investigations and recommended next steps, and gave them time to ask questions. Written information leaflets were available, but they were not routinely provided in alternative languages for people who did not speak English. Administrative staff also asked about any specific accommodations during initial telephone enquiries; however, they were not aware that telephone interpretation was available to support people who did not speak English.

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 provider listened to people and actively involved them in decisions about their care and treatment. Information about how to make a complaint was available in the waiting area. We also saw a suggestion box where patients and family members could share feedback. Records showed the service received 3 complaints in the previous 12 months, with communication identified as a theme. The services complaint log demonstrated that all complaints were appropriately followed up with learning identified and shared with the team.

Patients told us appointments were not rushed and staff always made time to address questions and concerns. They described feeling informed at every stage of their care and said staff listened carefully to what mattered to them. They could recontact the service, to clarify their understanding of results and discuss the options available to them.

The provider sought feedback from people using the service through questionnaires and other feedback mechanisms. Staff consistently encouraged women to discuss concerns and participate in decisions regarding screening, investigations and follow-up care. Leaders reviewed patient feedback regularly and demonstrated examples where learning had informed service improvements.

Patient feedback was overwhelmingly positive. We reviewed 21 patient questionnaires completed between April and July 2026, all of which contained positive responses. Leaders also maintained historical feedback demonstrating sustained levels of patient satisfaction and evidence of people recommending the service to family and friends.

The service was exceptional at ensuring people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider made services accessible and responsive to people's individual circumstances. Patients could self-refer or be referred by healthcare professionals. They were able to access appointments quickly and flexibly, and the provider demonstrated a proactive approach to accommodating requests wherever possible. Data we reviewed showed that, over the last year, patients waited less than 20 hours from referral to appointment. Diagnostic reports were produced and shared in a timely fashion, on the same day.

Patients told us they were able to secure appointments at times that suited their personal circumstances and lifestyles. Staff described a flexible booking system that enabled same-day or next-day appointments where capacity allowed. When urgent attention was required and no same-day appointment was available, scans could be carried out beyond normal opening hours to accommodate the patient. Staff explained that enquiries submitted online were usually responded to on the same day and cancellations were managed flexibly to minimise disruption. If unable to attend, people were supported to reschedule. Did Not Attend (DNA) rates remained low, at 1% reflecting effective communication. Where patients required urgent follow-up investigations or interventions due to deterioration in fetal or maternal condition, there were systems in place for patients to be seen at NHS fetal medicine unit within 24 hours.

People consistently told us they did not experience delays when accessing the service or attending appointments. Patient waiting times on arrival was low, at 8 minutes on average over the last year. Observations during the inspection demonstrated an organised appointment system and staff monitored patient flow to minimise waiting times. Past audits had identified occasional delays and leaders had introduced changes to scheduling arrangements to further improve the timeliness of appointments.

Managers told us they aimed to keep fees affordable to reduce financial barriers, which they said reflected the service’s not-for-profit approach. Staff made reasonable adjustments to help patients access the service. They had a physical disability and special needs policy. For example, the premises had lift access, and had access to treatment rooms which were accessible to wheelchair users. Staff asked about any disabilities or special needs at the patient’s initial enquiry in line with the services physical disability and special needs policy. Staff would then ensure any appropriate arrangements were in place prior to the patient’s arrival.

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.

The service ensured people experienced positive care and achieved good outcomes regardless of their individual circumstances. Clinical staff could discuss which testing and analysis would be most appropriate for individual patient circumstances to improve their outcomes. For example, invasive testing to detect chromosomal and genetic conditions were recommended for patients that may have a known genetic condition in their family.

Clinical records demonstrated consistent standards of assessment, reporting and follow-up. Records were complete, accurate and contemporaneous and showed women received care appropriate to their stage of pregnancy and clinical need.

The provider had considered the needs of people with reduced mobility. Facilities included lift access and accessible treatment rooms. Staff showed a willingness to make reasonable adjustments and accommodate individual needs where possible. While staff awareness of interpreting arrangements and the availability of written information in accessible formats could be improved, we did not find evidence that people experienced inequality in their care, experiences or outcomes.

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 provider supported people to understand future care and treatment needs and helped them plan for the next stages of their pregnancy journey. Women generally reported understanding what would happen following appointments and felt supported to make informed decisions about future care and monitoring.