Hey Baby 4D - The Revive Healthy Living Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation. We looked for evidence that there was an inclusive and positive culture of continuous learning and improvement that was based on meeting the needs of patients who used services and wider communities. We checked that leaders proactively supported staff and collaborated with partners to deliver care that was safe, integrated, person-centred, and sustainable, and to reduce inequalities.

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

This meant the service had a shared vision and culture. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. Patients felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. The service shared information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. The service focused on continuous learning.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Well-led.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had a shared vision and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion.

Hey Baby 4D –The Revive Healthy Living Centre had clear values. These included transparent pricing and offering rescans when needed. The service aimed to be family friendly and welcomed guests. Staff wanted patients and their families to have a positive experience. The service also had a set of fundamental standards aligned to national best practice.

Staff felt respected, supported, and valued. Staff reported that the culture was inclusive and how they felt valued and respected. Relationships between staff were positive, with strong teamwork.

Staff were focused on the needs of patients. The service provided opportunities for career development and training. The service had an open culture where patients, their families, and carers as well as staff could raise concerns without fear. 

 Staff met monthly to review performance and learning opportunities except when there was nothing to discuss. They also celebrated team achievements.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders had the experience, skills, and abilities to run the service, and they understood and managed the priorities and issues the service faced. 

Leaders worked regularly in the service. They were involved in patients' experiences and often acted as chaperones. It was clear that leaders wanted patients to have the best experience. 

Leaders had an open-door policy. The registered manager worked closely with staff. This helped leaders identify when staff needed support.

Leaders at all levels were visible and approachable in the service for patients and staff. Leaders knew how to deal with concerns when raised which promoted a positive culture in the service. 

Leaders felt communication from the brand was supportive and that the relationship and support was positive.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service fostered a positive culture where patients and staff felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The service had whistleblowing and bullying, and harassment policies in place which staff could access. There had not been any themes or trends at the service in relation to speaking up or whistleblowing concerns.

Staff and leaders acted with openness, honesty, and transparency. Staff were encouraged to raise concerns and offer ideas, and the culture allowed them to do so.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service valued diversity in their workforce. 

The service had an equality and diversity policy in place. Leaders ensured staff could work flexibly if possible. We saw staff had been provided with training around understanding LGBTQ+ patients. 

Equality and inclusion were embedded in policies and procedures, including the recruitment process. Managers made sure staff had equal and equitable access to continuing professional development opportunities. They also worked with each member of staff to adjust working hours in line with their personal needs and commitments, which promoted an inclusive working culture.

Diversity and inclusion were embedded across all aspects of the service, including in new staff onboarding, training, and governance systems.

All staff completed equality and diversity training that helped them deliver care in line with the provider’s diversity policy. This ensured people with protected characteristics defined by the Equality Act (2010) received care free from bias.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality care and support. They acted on the best information about risk and outcomes. 

The service operated effective governance processes through on-site activities. There was a range of information collected, monitored and communicated internally. Staff training was also reviewed, peer reviews were undertaken and policies and procedures were reviewed.

Staff could find the information they needed to understand performance, make decisions and improvements. The information systems were secure. 

Scan protocols were well laid out and easily accessible digitally. 

Leaders made sure that accurate information was discussed and shared with key staff. Information was shared face to face, on email or in team meetings. Risks were clearly identified and a formal log of these was kept. Leaders were able to give an example of how they had managed staff performance.

Audit processes and the outcomes were used by the service to monitor key areas. Patient identifiable information was handled correctly. We reviewed several policies and found these were up to date and readily available to staff. 

Leaders reviewed risks regularly. Risks were recorded electronically and on-site. The service displayed its current CQC rating in the clinic. 

The service held medical malpractice insurance for the reassurance and safety of the patients as well as protection for the sonographer. Recruitment checks and Disclosure and Barring Service checks were completed. 

There was a clear recruitment policy for international staff and processes in place to ensure equivalence of qualifications and experience.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. 

They worked closely with the local hospitals when a patient needed to go to hospital following their scan. They shared detailed scan reports with the patient to take with them so the best care could then be provided. The team’s work to establish working relationships with local NHS services significantly enhanced how the team could respond to people’s needs when they involved previously undetected concerns or medical problems. This helped reduce anxiety because sonographers facilitated rapid access to urgent care. This provided people with assurance and reduced pressure on NHS services by avoiding unnecessary urgent care attendance.

The main NHS service that referrals are made to who told us they have had several referrals which have always been appropriately made.

The service had partnered with several charities. Partnerships with non-profit agencies helped provide people with on-demand support, particularly for first-time mothers or complex pregnancies. The wide range of health promotion materials offered to people resulted from the team’s efforts to meet holistic needs and react to changes in demand. 

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service focused on continuous learning. They actively contributed to safe and effective practice.

Staff were supported to have the time to develop their skills. This included discussion of shadowing opportunities and being allowed time to attend additional training. 

Leaders actively contributed to safe and effective practice by working with partners in the system to create pathways for referrals. Leaders carried out regular audits of the care provided.