Precious Glimpse - Roundhay

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that people were treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We assessed the levels of people’s privacy and dignity afforded to them. We asked women to tell us about their experiences, if they were respected, if they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The evidence showed some shortfalls. Although the registered manager treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion, their privacy and dignity were not always protected.

There were no locks on the 2 scan room doors and no means of screening the scanning couch. This was a concern we identified at our previous inspection. The scan room was potentially accessible by other persons waiting in the unsupervised reception area, which meant the privacy and dignity of those being scanned, could be compromised.

Women we spoke with, who had recently used the service, confirmed there were other families waiting in reception, while they were being scanned. The registered manager told us they did not want to put locks on the doors, although they acknowledged there was still no risk assessment in place for this.

The registered manager gave specific examples of how they supported people if they needed to communicate any concerns, for example, absence of a fetal heartbeat. Appointment times allowed for flexibility if this arose. However, the rear door of the premises was labelled as ‘no exit’ and had multiple locks, which meant there was a risk distressed people who had received bad news, would have to leave through the main reception area, where other families were waiting.

No people attended appointments during our visit. However, women we spoke with who had used the service recently, were very positive about their experience. They told us the registered manager did not discuss any sensitive information in public, and the conversations were done in the scan room with the door closed. This concurred with most of the feedback we saw online.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always treat people as individuals or make sure their care, support and treatment met their individual needs and preferences.

We requested but did not receive the provider’s equality and diversity and disability access policies. This meant the service was unable to demonstrate how it protected people from harassment and discrimination, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

The waiver/consent forms did not prompt women to disclose information about communication or individual needs. In addition, the registered manager did not ask people about their specific needs, such as communication needs and preferences, prior to attending the service. This was confirmed by women we spoke with, who had recently attended for scans.

Women we spoke with told us the registered manager introduced themself and ensured they were comfortable prior to carrying out scan procedures.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always promote women’s independence, so they had choice and control over their own care and treatment.

The registered manager could not demonstrate how they facilitated women to make fully informed choices, so they had control over their own care. For example, the registered manager did not discuss potential risks in the context of women’s individual health history and pregnancy.

However, the registered manager explained how they provided verbal reassurance throughout the scan.

For those people demonstrating heightened anxiety, for example due to a previous pregnancy loss, the registered manager allowed them to bring a companion.

They told us how they encouraged children attending with women, to engage, and explained the images to them in a way they could understand.

They told us how they supported people appropriately when choosing scan images, so they did not feel rushed.

The evidence showed a good standard. The registered manager listened to and understood women’s needs, views and wishes. They responded to women’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The registered manager gave women and their companions help and emotional support when they needed it.

For example, if there was no fetal heartbeat detected and a suspected miscarriage, they offered to call the local NHS early pregnancy unit to make an appointment, or women could choose to do this themselves.

The registered mananger told us they knew a bereavement support contact they could signpost women to, although there were no leaflets or information available to take away.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of the registered manager.

The registered manager as the sole employee at the service, was able to manage appointments so that they could take adequate rest breaks during the working day.

They accessed support from immediate family and friends for their own physical and emotional health.