• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Imaginatal

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

The White House, Hempsted Lane, Gloucester, GL2 5JA 0800 640 4299

Provided and run by:
Imaginatal Services Ltd

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 15 December 2021

Imaginatal is a small service run by Imaginatal Services Ltd. which offers women pregnancy scans and Non-Invasive Prenatal blood Tests (NIPTS). This service is for women who are over the age of 18 years, are self-funding and can book themselves for scans using the service’s website or by telephone.

NIPTS is a blood test which enables parents to find out the gender of their child and determines whether or not their child is at risk of having a range of chromosomal conditions, such as Down’s Syndrome.

Scans offered include:

  • Early pregnancy reassurance scans
  • Dating / Growth scans
  • Gender determination scans
  • 3D / 4D bonding scans
  • Late pregnancy reassurance scans

The clinic is provided from a location on the outskirts of Gloucester City but close to local shops, businesses and residential areas. The building used is on the ground floor, self-contained with a reception/waiting area, a separate clinic room, kitchen area and toilet facilities. The clinic room has an adjustable scanning bed, scanner and space for the pregnant woman and up to six other guests. There are five staff for reception and administration who are employed on zero hours contracts. One sonographer undertakes the majority of scans and is the clinic owner and registered manager of the service. Two other sonographers perform scans on an ad hoc arrangement.

The service is registered with the CQC to provide the regulated activity of Diagnostic and Screening Procedures.

Scans are available at the location on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday between 9am and 3pm.

There has been a registered manager in place since it first registered with the CQC in July 2018. The service has not been inspected since its first registration. It has recently changed its name from Hey Baby 4D.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 15 December 2021

This was our first inspection of this service. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for women and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect women from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to women, acted on them and kept good care records. The service knew how to manage safety incidents and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of women, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
  • Staff treated women with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to women and their families.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of women’s individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for their results.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of women receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with women and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services.

However:

  • The whistleblowing process did not provide a truly independent route for staff to voice concerns if they did not want to raise them with either of the two directors.
  • Systems did not always promote clear and consistent opportunities for staff to contribute their ideas for improvement.
  • When staff raised concerns, feedback was not always provided or evident.