Peek a Baby

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)