Life Through The Lens - Stoke 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

This means 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 changed to Requires improvement.

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, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This key question has been rated Requires improvement: This meant people’s needs were not always met.

Staff did not make leaflets available to service users in other languages. They did not ensure staff had access to interpreters and information was not available in accessible formats.

Staff told us and we heard from service users that if the scan was unclear for any reason or if the service user were unhappy with the outcome of any scan, they would be rescanned at no extra cost. Service users were happy with the time they had to wait for an appointment. There were no waiting lists for the service and people we spoke to were seen quickly. There was lots of availability on the booking website.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff made service users feel comfortable and at ease during their scans. Service users were involved in any decision making around their care.

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 make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

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.

Service users were able to book a scan through an online booking tool or by telephoning the clinic directly. There were a variety of services on offer including sexing scans, 4D scans, confirmation scans, and growth scans. The service also provided service users with items such as fridge magnets, DVDs, and key rings. There were also balloons service users could purchase for gender reveal parties.

Staff told us and we heard from service users how if the scan were unclear for any reason or if the service user were unhappy with the outcome of any scan, they would be rescanned at no extra cost.

Service users were offered advice on the website about ways in which they could improve their images and at what point in pregnancy was best to book a 4D scan. The website mentioned service users could bring family along and drink tea and coffee and states that there was also a range of various toys for all ages. However, there were no toys available for children to play with on the day of our inspection.

We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

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.

The service offered privately funded scans to service users over 7 weeks of pregnancy. They did not scan within 2 weeks of an NHS scan but would rescan the following week of a 4D scan if staff were unable to obtain good images. The service did not have any written protocol regarding frequency of scans.

The clinic opened on a Wednesday from 2pm to 8pm, it also opened on a Saturday and Sunday from 10am to 4pm. Staff told us if they were busy, they could also open on a Monday. We spoke with service users who had returned to the service with further pregnancies as they had been happy when they had previously been.

We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information was not available in accessible format, such as easy read or large print.

Staff did not make information leaflets available in languages spoken by service users.

Managers did not ensure that staff and service users had easy access to interpreters and/or signers. We observed family being used to interpret. Lack of access to interpreters was raised as a concern during our last inspection in 2019. Staff told us they sometimes used an internet source to translate.

We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The service had not had any complaints in last 12 months. There was a small sign in the waiting area to advise people how to make a complaint. However, it also stated that if they were not happy with the outcome of the complaint to contact Care Quality Commission. This is not the correct process.

Service users told us they would contact the service if they had any complaints. Staff told us when service users had not been happy in the past, they had not recorded this but resolved it at the time. This meant staff could not learn from concerns raised or identify any common themes and trends.

There was nothing official in place encouraging service users to provide feedback on the service. Staff told us service users could feedback on social media if they wished.

There was a complaint handling policy with the purpose of providing a transparent, fair, and timely process for service users to raise concerns or complaints about services provided by the clinic. The process was that an acknowledgement receipt would be sent within 3 working days with an aim to respond within 20 working days. It also referenced the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for escalation.

We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The building was not suitable for wheelchair users, and the step down to the scanning room posed difficulty for people with poor mobility.

Service users were happy with the time they had to wait for an appointment. There were no waiting lists for the service and people we spoke to were seen quickly. There were lots of availability on the booking website. However, waiting times were not audited.

We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff within the service promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff made service users feel comfortable and at ease during their scans.

The provider had not undertaken equality impact assessments of their policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics at a disadvantage.

The service did not provide any training in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights but relied on the sonographers being trained in their other employment. There were no policies on equality and diversity.

We support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

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.

Service users were involved in any decision making around their care. For example, they were advised if there were any concerns about their scans and in any referrals made on their behalf. Consent was applied and recorded.