Himom 4D Baby Bonding Studio is operated by Dr Tariq Mahmood. The service carries out pregnancy baby ultrasound scans for souvenir videos or images, rather than for clinical purposes or as part of a pregnancy pathway of care. Facilities include one scanning room and reception area.

The service provides ultrasound baby imaging for non-diagnostic purposes. These are commonly known as ‘keepsake’ or ‘baby souvenir’ scans. They provide parents-to-be with images and/or recordings of their unborn baby as mementoes only.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out a short notice announced inspection (we gave staff four days’ notice that we were coming to inspect) on 22 January 2019.

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.

The only service provided by this facility was ultrasound baby imaging for non-diagnostic purposes.

Services we rate

We rated it as Good overall.

We found areas of good practice:

• The provider had the right qualifications, skills, training and experience to keep people safe from avoidable harm and to provide the right care and treatment.

• Staff cared for women with compassion, kindness and respect. They involved women and those close to them in decisions about their care and treatment.

• Current evidence-based guidance and good practice standards were used to inform the delivery of care and treatment. The provider demonstrated understanding of the guidance and legislation that affected their practice.

• The service had a vision, where the delivery of quality care was the top priority, and the provider worked to achieve it.

• The provider promoted a positive culture.

• The provider monitored scan image quality and gender determination outcomes.

• Women could access services and appointments in a way and time that suited them.

• The provider understood how and when to assess whether a woman had the capacity to make decisions about their care.

• Services provided reflected the needs of the population served and individual needs were taken into account.

We found areas of practice that require improvement:

• We were not assured that sufficient governance arrangements were in place to ensure high standards of care were maintained. There was no system in place to manage and monitor incidents, complaints and risks.

• There was no system in place to identify training needs and monitor compliance.

• There was no checklist in place to show when the environment and equipment was cleaned, or that equipment was checked regularly to ensure it was fit for purpose.

• The provider did not give women a written record of their findings if they found a suspected concern and needed to refer them to NHS services.

• There was limited engagement with women, those close to them and the public, and we did not find any evidence of change because of comments or complaints received.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must take some actions to comply with the regulations and that it should make other improvements, even though a regulation had not been breached, to help the service improve. We also issued the provider with one requirement notice that affected Himom 4D Baby Bonding Studio. Details are at the end of the report.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

The service provided a non- diagnostic pregnancy ultrasound scanning service for people. During this inspection we spoke with five people who used the service, the provider and one member of staff. People we spoke with were complimentary about the care that they received. One person said: “They are fantastic. I recommended it to a friend of mine. Brilliant quality”.

People were supported in making the decision about having an ultrasound scan. This was through information about the procedures on the web site and in the service's information leaflet. We saw in people's records that consent to the ultrasound procedure had been sought on the day of the appointment.

The sonographer spoke directly to people prior to their appointment if they had any concerns or required more information about the procedure. The service had procedures in place to manage emergencies or when they identified concerns on the scans.

The service had policies and procedures in place relating to 'safeguarding vulnerable adults' and 'child protection'. Staff were aware of what action they would take if they suspected abuse.

Staff had not been recruited in an appropriate way and checks had not been undertaken that ensured they were suitable to care for people.

We found that any comments and complaints people made would be responded to appropriately and ensured that people were listened to.