Meet Your Miracle- Coventry

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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 gave appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information to patients. All patients were sent a term of agreement prior to having their scan. Patients were encouraged to sign this form online prior to their appointment. The information provided gave them information about the scan and its limitations, picture quality and ensuring the patient understood their antenatal care was undertaken by the NHS and this did not replace that care.

The service did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The complaints procedure was not displayed in the waiting room for patients to easily refer to. It was not detailed in the patient information which was sent to them and it was not on their website. We were told patients could make a complaint verbally or by email. Where it was made verbally, this was not written down or tracked. This meant learning couldn’t be shared across sites and themes were not obtained. Following the assessment, the complaint procedure was added to the website under the ‘FAQ’ section. Staff told us they knew how to resolve minor concerns and avoid issues escalating into formal complaints.

All patients who consented to receive emails from the service received an email following their appointment asking for feedback. The service had received 22 complaints in the 12 months prior to our assessment for Coventry and 17 for Chesterfield. We saw the complaints had been investigated and responded to via email. We saw evidence that feedback was shared from complaints with individual staff but did not see complaints shared with other staff and used for learning to improve the service. There was a complaint policy in place which stated they would acknowledge the complaint within 3 days, but they had no set timeframe for the response. The policy stated the registered manager would review a summary of complaints quarterly to establish trends and make improvements to the service where necessary; we did not see evidence of this.

The service welcomed online reviews through social media and search engine sites. We saw a lots of very positive reviews from patients.

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.