Bodmin 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 service was previously inspected but not rated in 2017. This key question at this inspection has been rated good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. However, the service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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. Despite the lack of privacy screens, staff ensured that patients dignity was maintained whilst being connected to the dialysis station.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. We observed interactions between nursing staff and patients. Staff remained courteous and polite during all interactions with patients.

Results from the patient survey in 2024 reported strong positive feedback on ‘My care team treats me with kindness’ and ‘My care team treats me with respect’.

The service mostly treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met their needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We observed all staff treating people in a respectful manner from booking in at reception to the end of the dialysis session. We observed staff engaging with patients and checking patient’s wellbeing.

The service made adjustments for patients and tried to accommodate specific requests for appointment times.

Information leaflets were available in a number of languages.

The service mostly promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However,the patients we spoke to were not aware of visiting arrangements and had never been asked if they would like family to visit them whilst on dialysis.

Patients who used services had access to television screens and the internet whilst they were having treatment. However, internet access did not always function.

The service mostly 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 mostly identified and responded to changing risks to patients. We were given an example of a patient who required emergency transfer by ambulance to the nearest NHS hospital. A review of this incident showed staff followed procedures by phoning the consultant and the emergency services and this happened in a timely manner.

Patients we spoke with complained about the length of time they had to wait to be connected to the dialysis machines. We were informed, post inspection, the service was looking at their processes to minimise waiting times for patients to improve the connection and disconnection process.

The service did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff and staff were not always supported to deliver person-centred care.

The service had enough staff however staff were noticeably busy and worked under pressure when people required closer supervision or if any issues with venous access arose.

We saw staff often did not take their breaks at their allocated times due to workload and often ended up eating late in the afternoon. There were 2 members of staff pregnant at the time of the inspection. We believed the importance of their well-being was not fully considered, such as the need for regular breaks, drinks and food.

Some staff did not always feel supported by their senior management team. We saw staff appraisals did not document meaningful conversations about career development and how it could be supported.