Bridgwater Satellite Dialysis Unit

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff attitudes and behaviours when interacting with patients showed that they were discreet, respectful and responsive, providing patients with help, emotional support and advice at the time they needed it.

Patients we spoke with said staff were friendly, treated them well and they received excellent care. We observed positive interactions between nursing staff and patients. One patient we spoke with said “this is one of the best units I have been to, staff are so friendly and feel happy”.

Results from the patient survey in 2025 reported strong positive feedback on the metric ‘how would you grade your overall experience of the service provided from 1 (worst it can be) to 7 (best if can be)’. The service scored no lower than 5, with 73% scoring 7.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of information about patients. Staff directed patients to other services when required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.

The service made adjustments for patients and tried to accommodate specific requests. They accommodated patient preferences around scheduling, specifically enabling patients to have a weekend off dialysis treatment by using a regular vacancy slot with doctors approval.

We observed a patient raise a concern to the service regarding the accessibility of the type of vehicle the transport company used for their journey that day. The service raised this with the company, on behalf of the patient, to ensure suitable vehicles were used.

The service had completed a disability access audit; the environment had been carefully planned to allow automatic wide doors and level access. However, there was no hearing induction loop.

Patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain. However, information was not available in large print, braille or audio.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Shared care empowered patients to take an active role in managing their treatment. Patients were involved in their care, for example, some patients had learnt aspects of machine preparation, adjusted machine goals and weighed themselves.

Patients who used services had access to television screens and the internet whilst they were having treatment.

Patients said the service accommodated requests to change treatment days for occasions such as holidays. One patient we spoke with explained “the staff are so easy to talk to. They changed my dialysis so I could attend my daughter’s wedding and I know I can request a holiday”.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. We saw examples of incidents where a patient deteriorated and an ambulance was called. This happened in a timely manner and staff followed the deteriorating patient policy. Staff were able to access support from relevant clinicians when required.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and planned for these accordingly.

Leaders had recently received positive feedback from a patient thanking the service for arranging a blood sample collection via courier. This direct action had ensured diagnostic results were processed without delay.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Staff felt positive and proud about working for the service and with the team. We requested the staff survey results where 3 overall statements were posed and staff had to agree or disagree; ‘I rarely think about looking for a new job with another company’, ‘Our company inspires me to do my best work’ and ‘I would recommend our company to people I know as a great place to work’. There was an index score which was based on the 3 statements, overall the unit scored 81% for these questions. The staff survey result for the question ‘the service inspires me to do my best work’ scored 92% positive.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service. Staff could request flexible working and the rostering of staff allowed sufficient rest periods between late and early shifts.

Debriefs were provided after traumatic events with involvement from external agencies. Staff were signposted to professional support if required.