Midlands Ultrasound & Medical Services (MUMS Limited)

Updated 3 August 2021

Midlands Ultrasound & Medical Services (MUMS) Limited is a consultant-led private clinic based in Solihull, West Midlands which has been in operation since 2003. The service provides a complete pregnancy and obstetric care package, during which they take on the responsibility of managing all medical and midwifery elements of pregnancy including taking relevant blood tests, ultrasound examinations, screening for conditions which might complicate the pregnancy as well as undertaking the private delivery of the baby in a hospital setting and postnatal care.

MUMS also offers private GP services and a range of diagnostic tests including testing for allergies, cancer, heart and health screens. Appointments with specialist consultants are available in specialities such as Ear, Nose and Throat (ENT), Cardiology, General Surgery, Urology and Pain Management. Gynaecology services including advice regarding ovarian cysts or endometriosis (a condition where tissue that behaves like the lining of the womb (endometrium) is found in other parts of the body).

The service uses the latest technology 3D and 4D ultrasound machines which can give the highest resolution images for use in obstetrics and gynaecology. A 3D ultrasound takes thousands of pictures or photos of the baby and provides a three-dimensional image of the baby while a 4D ultrasound test is a way of reproducing a moving image of the baby inside the womb.

Sexual health services including sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening, diagnosis, treatment and prevention as well as contraception services – including emergency contraception are provided by MUMS.

The service has had a registered manager in post since October 2010 and is registered to provide the following regulated activities:

• Diagnostic and screening procedures
• Family planning
• Maternity and midwifery services
• Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced inspection on 25 May 2021. During our inspection we saw that the warning notice for breaches of Regulation 17 Good governance and Regulation 19 Fit and Proper persons employed, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 had been complied with.

The service was previously inspected on 10 January 2020 using our comprehensive inspection methodology where we rated the service as inadequate overall. During the inspection we found breaches of the following Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014:

• Regulation 17: Good Governance
• Regulation 19: Fit and proper persons employed

Following the inspection in 2020, we issued a Warning Notice and placed them into special measures.

The main service provided by Midlands Ultrasound and Medical Services (MUMS) was diagnostic imaging. Where our findings on diagnostic imaging – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the diagnostic imaging service level.

Updated 3 August 2021

Our rating of this location improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well 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 patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients 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 patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patient’s individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. Patients 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 patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Staff generally assessed risks to patients and acted on them. However, policies seen did not reflect the practices within the service.
• The service generally managed medicines well but we found that not all drugs were stored in suitable lockable systems.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. However, it was not clear for people how to give feedback.

Updated 3 August 2021

Our rating of this service improved. We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well 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 patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients 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 patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patient’s individual needs and made it easy for people to give feedback. Patients 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 patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• While staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse, they did not always know how to apply it.
• Emergency equipment was not kept in line with recommended guidance.
• Staff did not always make reasonable adjustments to help patients access services, with limited access to interpreting services and written information available in few languages. However, the service was inclusive and took an account of patient’s individual needs and preferences.

The main service provided by Midlands Ultrasound and Medical Services (MUMS) was Diagnostic imaging. Where our findings on Diagnostic Imaging – for example, management arrangements – also apply to other services, we do not repeat the information but cross-refer to the Diagnostic Imaging section.

We spoke with five members of staff, three patients and reviewed eight sets of patient records. We also reviewed information from standard operating procedures and meeting minutes.

Updated 3 August 2021

We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service-controlled infection risk well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available seven days a week.
• Staff treated patients 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 patients, families and carers.
• People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
• 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 patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• Staff did not know how to apply safeguarding training however they understood how to protect patients from abuse and the service worked well with other agencies to do so. Staff generally assessed risks to patients and acted on them. However, policies seen did not reflect the practices within the service.
• The service usually managed medicines well but we found that not all drugs were stored in suitable lockable systems.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people and took account of patients’ individual needs. However, it was not clear for people on how to give feedback.

Outpatients is a small proportion of activity at MUMS. The main service was Diagnostic imaging. Where arrangements were the same, we have reported findings in the Diagnostic imaging section.

We spoke with five members of staff, three patients and reviewed 10 sets of patient records. We also reviewed information from standard operating procedures and meeting minutes.