East Anglia Ultrasound Services

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 that we looked for evidence that the service met people's needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this follow up assessment, the rating remained good.
This meant that 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.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
At the last inspection it was identified that Information was not always provided in a form accessible to all patients. For example, the service did not have information leaflets in easy-read format, in languages other than English, or in a child-friendly format.
The service did not gather information about patient’s preferred communication needs before they attended their appointment. This impacted on staff’s ability to prepare in advance or make necessary adjustments for patient’s communication needs.
At this assessment, improvements had been seen in the medical history questionnaire that was sent to people prior to their appointments. This now included requests for information regarding any learning or physical disabilities and autism and hearing or visual impairment. The questionnaire also asked if there was any requirement for the person to have an interpreter or chaperone. The service also had access to a “translator pen” that could be scanned over English text and translate it into various languages.
Information could also be provided in a larger print if required. People could also use a Quick Response (QR) code to scan for service information.
These improvements enabled staff to prepare for any additional support or communication needs that a person may need prior to their appointment improving the overall patient experience.
We did not see any information that was provided in a child friendly format.[

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support.
At the last assessment, leaders did not always document evidence of responding to patient feedback.
Improvements were seen at this assessment. Feedback forms were sent to each patient following an appointment. Feedback cards were available at the service, and people had access to a QR code to scan to also provide feedback. Feedback was documented and responded to by the registered manager. For example, feedback from people sighting that the location was difficult to find the service contacted google maps to help with the location and amended their website to improve directional guidance for people visiting the service.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.