Life Through The Lens - Stoke Centre is operated by Life Through The Lens Limited. Facilities include one consultation room and one reception area.

The service comes under the diagnostic imaging core service, but the service undertakes baby keepsakes as the sole activity which are not providing a diagnostic service.

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We undertook an unannounced inspection on 4 April 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.

Services we rate

We rated it as Requires improvement overall.

We found the following areas that require improvement:

• The service did not provide mandatory training in key skills to all staff and did not make sure everyone completed it. Not all staff had basic life support training, training to recognise and report abuse and Mental Capacity Act training.

• The service did not always provide care and treatment based on national guidance and evidence of its effectiveness. Managers did not check to make sure staff followed guidance.

• The registered manager did not have all the necessary knowledge they needed to run a service providing high-quality sustainable care.

• The service did not systematically improve service quality and did not safeguard high standards of care. The registered manager was not aware of all the risks to the service.

• Staff were not able to demonstrate they had a cleaning checklist in place.

• Staff stored ‘control substances that are hazardous to health’ (COSHH) products in an unlocked cupboard.

• The registered manager did not monitor the effectiveness of care and treatment and used the findings to improve them.

• The service did not have access to a translation service for non-English speakers.

We found the following areas of good practice:

• The service had a good system in place for referring patients to other organisations, managing patient incidents and dealing with patient complaints.

• Staff cared for patients with compassion. Feedback from patients confirmed that staff treated them well and with kindness and would provide support if necessary. The service engaged well with women who use the service.

• The service mostly had suitable premises and equipment and looked after them well.

• Staff of different kinds worked together as a team to benefit patients. Healthcare professionals supported each other to provide good care.

• The service had a procedure in place for gathering consent from women prior to any scan and staff followed this.

• The service planned and provided services in a way that met the needs of local people and people could access the service when they want to.

• The registered manager promoted a positive culture that supported and valued staff, creating a sense of common purpose based on shared values. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager.

Following this inspection, we told the provider that it must make some improvements where regulations have been breached and it should make other improvements, to help the service improve. We issued three requirement notices. Details are at the end of the report.

Amanda Stanford

Deputy Chief Inspector of Hospitals (Central)

People we spoke with told us they were happy with the service they received. One person told us, "This is my third scan. I find it reassuring to be able to have confirmation of baby’s progress". Another person said, "It's my first one. I am having a confirmation scan. I know what to expect because I looked at the website and they explained things to me when I phoned to make an appointment".

We saw that people were provided with information about what to expect and the various types of scans they could have. Information provided on the website included a list of frequently asked questions (FAQ's) and informed people of any risks. We saw and observed that people were asked to consent to a scan before their appointment.

The provider had not retained evidence that the equipment used for scans had been serviced or checked to ensure it was functioning properly. Pre-employment recruitment checks to ensure that staff were suitable had not been completed.

There was evidence that complaints received were managed appropriately and responded to, but information was not provided to people about how they could make a complaint or how it would be looked into.