Bodmin Dialysis Unit

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

This service was previously inspected but not rated in 2017. This key question at this inspection has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We looked for evidence that people and communities were always at the centre of how care was planned and delivered. We checked that the health and care needs of people and communities were understood, and they were actively involved in planning care that met these needs. We also looked for evidence that people could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics.

This service scored 68 (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 mostly made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. Although the service did not have holistic care plans, the service worked in partnership with people to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Dialysis care was planned so that the satellite dialysis unit treated patients whose conditions weren’t as complex as patients seen by the local NHS trust. People who used services were able to access the service 6 days a week and were mostly offered the choice of the morning or afternoon session to receive their treatment. Patients complained that arrival and departure times were not staggered which often led to delays in being connected and disconnected from the dialysis machines.

Patients said they felt safe receiving treatment at the unit, although one patient said he was not sure staff would cope should he have a hypoglycaemic attack.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

The service alerted the local NHS trust around any vacant slots the service had so these could be filled with appropriate patients. There were clear pathways for patients to be transferred to the local hospital if they became unwell. The service engaged with the local patient transport supplier to ensure patients arrived and were picked up from dialysis in a timely manner.

An admission criteria was set out so all patients, irrespective of age, gender, race, religion, belief or sexual orientation, could access the service. Patients were required to be stable and required medical approval, from their lead consultant, for their suitability to have haemodialysis at the unit.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. We saw information could be provided in different languages and there were processes to use should a person using services require translation services.

The service involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. However, the service did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Patients said they were able to raise issues with staff members but they were not always assured of how and when these would be addressed.

Information on how to raise a complaint was not included on the service’s website. However, there was the opportunity for people to contact the provider via a web form. The service largely treated older people, who may or may not have been comfortable using the internet and there was no telephone number provided for complaints to accommodate for this.

The service had received one formal complaint in the past year. We were told the service responded to verbal complaints right away. However, these were not logged so that they could be monitored for themes or trends.

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed, when they needed it.

The service was accessible for people identified as medically suitable for the service. There were disabled toilets and the service was wheelchair accessible. There was level access to the building which was all on one floor. Patients had emergency call bells to use if help was required and there was ample parking for people using the services.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. All staff had completed Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training.

People were supported to plan for important life changes so they had enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff were aware about patients’ resuscitation wishes. The staff held a log which listed the patient’s decision and the frequency that this was to be reviewed. End of life planning was managed through discussions between the patient, family, GP and renal consultant.