Precious Glimpse - Roundhay

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

We looked for evidence that people were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of women were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that women could access care in ways which met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. We found new breaches of regulation 12 and continuing breaches of regulation 12. This meant people’s needs were not always 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.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices.

The registered manager could not demonstrate how they were assured people always received appropriate care and treatment. For example, they could not describe how they made reasonable adjustments for people with a disability or mobility problems, where necessary.

The service did not tell people all planned and possible costs in advance of them calling to make a booking. There was no price list or statement displayed at the service outlining the terms and conditions for all the services it provided, including details of fees and payment methods. This was also a concern we identified at our previous inspection.

There was no up-to-date pricing information displayed on the social media page to ensure people had a clear understanding of scan costs. For example, posts we saw on the Precious Glimpse Roundhay social media page were infrequent and invited people to enquire by phone to discuss ‘special offers.’ The most recent information was posted in March 2026, with a price for an early scan, but no details for other types of scan.

Women we spoke with told us the registered manager informed them of costs verbally when they telephoned to request a booking. Afterwards, they received an automated confirmation message.

However, a customer review we read online stated ‘maybe you could explain pricing?’

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not fully understand the needs of people and their local communities, so care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The registered manager could not demonstrate that women’s care and treatment were delivered in a way that was responsive and met their needs. For example, the registered manager did not gather information about individual needs, before women were scanned.

This meant women’s needs and preferences, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, and the diverse health and social care needs of the local community were not fully considered.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The Precious Glimpse Roundhay social media page was in English language format only and had very limited content. There was no website. However, the registered manager told us this would be available in the future.

The was no information for people to take away, such as leaflets signposting to support and advocacy services or advice for maximising people’s health.

The waiver/consent forms showed the name of the franchisor and were not localised to Precious Glimpse Roundhay. It stated scans would be performed by Precious Glimpse Ltd, which was incorrect. Women did not receive a copy to take away after signing the agreement.

The evidence showed significant shortfalls. The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

We requested but did not receive the provider’s complaints management policy. In addition, we requested but did not receive data about the number of complaints received in the last 12 months, or any associated responses.

The service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. For example, information about how to complain was displayed on a poster behind the reception desk, in very pale font on a white background, which was illegible.

We discussed recent complaints with the registered manager who told us they encouraged people to discuss any dissatisfaction with them in the first instance. If customers were dissatisfied, the registered manager offered a free scan or a refund.

The registered manager confirmed they had not maintained contact with the franchisor for the last 4 years. This meant there was no objective point of escalation for complainants, and they would have to complain to the person who provided the care.

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

The service advertised on line as open 7 days a week. The registered manager told us they performed approximately 40 scans per week in the last 12 months but did not collect data for numbers of people who did not attend their appointment. We requested but did not receive the provider’s policy for managing missed and cancelled appointments.

The toilet doorway at the premises was wide enough to allow wheelchair access. However, the facility had not been formally risk assessed to establish if modifications such as a toilet raiser and grab rails were required for people with disability or mobility problems. This was a concern we also identified at our previous inspection.

There was no private baby change facility at the service.

In addition, the scan couch in the scan room was not height adjustable. This meant there was a risk that women with mobility issues and those living with a disability could have difficulty transferring on to it. The registered manager told us there was a step-up kept in the basement; however, people would be left alone in the scan room while they brought the equipment.

Women accessed the service, by appointment only, when they needed to and received their scan promptly. Up to 30 minutes were allowed for early scans and 40 minutes for gender and 4D scans.

Women who had recently used the service told us they received an appointment time that was convenient for them and the appointments ran to time. The service allowed people to have a re-scan when required. For example, if the baby was not clearly visible due to its position.

The evidence showed some shortfalls. The registered manager knew about local groups of people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. However, they did not always tailor care, support and treatment in response to this.

The registered manager was aware of the local population demographic and knew about the potential for health inequalities. For example, they told us about how they had assisted people with literacy difficulties to complete the waiver/consent form.

People who did not speak English as their first language could access the service. The registered manager told us on occasion, they used women’s family members as interpreters. This is strongly discouraged by NHS England, as relying on them for sensitive information introduces potential risks regarding confidentiality, accuracy and safeguarding. However, the registered manager was aware of translation applications to interpret documentation as required.

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.