Peek a Baby

Updated 20 May 2020

Peek-A-Baby is operated by Ultrasound-Care Scanning Services Ltd. The service opened in 2017. It is a private service in Birmingham, West Midlands. The service primarily serves the communities of Birmingham. It also accepts patients from outside this area. The provider also operates the same type of service from a second location.

Peek- A-Baby began as a non-clinical non-diagnostic scanning studio providing keepsake scans in 2D and 4D with the health and wellbeing of both mother and baby at the forefront of their objectives. The service has now evolved to offer women diagnostic ultrasounds for reassurance in early pregnancy, growth scans and anomaly scans. It also offers other types of scan to men and women. This includes for example, abdominal scans, prostate, kidney and bladder scans, aortic surveillance scans and fertility scans

To accommodate the diagnostic scanning, Ultrasound-Care Scanning Services Ltd was formed and the service expanded to include a second scanning room and waiting area. Facilities include two consultation rooms, two waiting areas and one reception area.

The service has had a registered manager in post since it opened.

Updated 20 May 2020

Peek-A-Baby is operated by Ultrasound-Care Scanning Services Ltd and provide clinical and diagnostic scans, and baby ultra sound scans, including 2D and 4D images and videos. The baby scanning is provided under the Peek-A-Baby brand name and makes up 95% of the business. It provides women who use their service with images for keepsakes and diagnostics for reassurance. Other clinical and diagnostic scans are provided under the providers Ultrasound-Care Scanning Services division and provide scans for men and women over 18 years of age.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We undertook an announced inspection on 26 February and conducted a telephone interview on 24 March 2020. To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate.

Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We rated it as Requires improvement overall

Our key findings were as follows:

• The service did not have access to an identified level three safeguarding trained lead. This was not in line with national guidance.
• The service did not routinely time patient scans and did not record those which exceeded 15 minutes.
• The service had some arrangements in place to assess and manage risks to patients, however the process for risk assessing individual patients was not sufficiently robust.
• There was no formal risk register for the risks the service had identified.
• The service used family members to translate for patients who did not speak or understand English.
• The service did not keep records of team meetings and minutes and actions were not recorded.
• Actions following complaints were not recorded and there was no formal log of all complaints.
• There were gaps in the delivery, recording and implementation of quality monitoring.The service did not have a documented business continuity plan.
• The service did monitor or analyse patient feedback.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice

• Managers in the service monitored staff compliance with mandatory training in key skills and made sure everyone had completed training specific to their roles to support the delivery of safe care.
• Staff understood safeguarding processes and were confident to escalate concerns.
• The maintenance and use of equipment kept people safe.
• Where possible, complaints were resolved at the time they were made, and free rescans were offered if the scan could not be completed.
• The service had enough staff with the right qualifications, skills, and training to provide the right care and treatment. Employment and qualification checks were carried out on all staff.
• Peoples’ individual care records were completed and managed in a way that kept people safe.
• The service provided care and treatment that was based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness.
• Throughout our inspection we saw that patients were treated with compassion, kindness, dignity, and respect. People could access the service when they needed it. Waiting times from referral to treatment were in line with good practice.
• Leaders of the service had the right skills and experience to run the service.
• The managers across the service promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values.
• The service managed and used information to support its activities, using secure electronic systems with security safeguards.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it should make improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. Details are at the end of the report.

Heidi Smoult

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central Region)

Updated 20 May 2020

Overall, the care provided by the service was requires improvement for safe, responsive and well led. Caring was rated as good. We do not rate effective in outpatient settings.

There was no access to a level three safeguarding lead.

There were gaps in the delivery, recording and implementation of quality monitoring.

There was no risk register for the service.

Ultrasound scans were not timed.

The service did monitor or analyse patient feedback

Complaints were investigated however actions were not recorded following complaints.

The service did not document their team meetings.

There was no formal translation service in place, and the provider had been using family members where this was required.

The service did not have a documented business continuity plan

There was no evidence of audits undertaken to monitor or improve infection prevention and control.

The service had some arrangements in place to assess and manage risks to patients, however the process for risk assessing individual patients was not sufficiently robust.

However:

The service had enough staff to provide the service and keep patients safe.

Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well.

Where possible, complaints were resolved at the time they were made, and free rescans were offered if the scan could not be completed.

Staff took account of patients’ individual needs and helped them understand their conditions.

Patients were happy with the care they received, and we found the service to be caring and compassionate.

Scans were reported on during the procedure and were available immediately.