Hull NHS 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 key question looks at whether the provider was responsive to people’s needs.

At our last assessment, we did not rate this key question. At this assessment, the service was rated as good.

This rating means the service organised and delivered care in a way that met people’s needs.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Patients told us they felt well supported and treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew patients well and understood their individual needs. The environment supported person-centred care, including 5 side rooms for patients who needed a calmer or more tailored setting, such as those living with dementia. Staff adjusted the environment in response to patient preference, for example by using curtains or quieter spaces.

A separate home haemodialysis team supported patients in 2 dedicated stations. Staff encouraged patients to develop independence through shared care. For example, 2 patients were supported to transition to home dialysis, which gave them greater flexibility and control while continuing to work full time.

All patients had a named nurse and consultant responsible for overseeing their care. Staff told us this helped build strong relationships and continuity. They recorded communication and physical support needs in care records. For example, staff used assessment tools such as MR VICTOR to guide safe catheter care based on skin type and to identify early signs of infection.

Staff responded promptly to call bells and managed pain and discomfort effectively. They supported communication needs by providing access to interpreters, large print and braille materials. Guidance on accessing interpreting services was readily available, helping staff meet the needs of patients with language or sensory impairments.

Staff developed individualised care plans, which included routine actions and were used to inform multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions. There were also care plan templates for specific risks, such as falls and diabetes, to support tailored care.

However, we identified gaps in care plan review and follow-up. One patient’s care plan for managing their central venous catheter had not been reviewed for 5 months. Staff also told us that long-term sickness had affected named nurses’ ability to complete follow-ups. This meant some patients were not always informed of their blood test results.

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

Dialysis sessions ran on time and patients were not routinely kept waiting. Staff contacted patients to inform them of any delays before or on arrival where possible.

The service adhered to a timeframe for first consultant appointments after patients started treatment. Staff arranged treatment bookings within 4 to 6 weeks, and consultants could review patients within 2 weeks where needed. For urgent clinical concerns, staff escalated patients promptly to a consultant or, if necessary, to the emergency department.

Staff recognised that transport delays were a common issue affecting access to care. They escalated delays to the patient transport service and monitored patients closely. Staff described a recent incident where a patient was not collected until 8pm, after the unit had closed. Two staff remained on site to ensure the patient left safely, in line with the service protocol.

The service supported continuity of care and flexibility through home haemodialysis (HHD). Staff actively promoted this option and supported patients to transition to home treatment. During our assessment, 2 patients were using home dialysis machines independently, which gave them greater flexibility and independence.

Staff understood their patient cohort and planned care in advance. They developed strong relationships with patients who attended regularly and adjusted care to meet individual clinical and emotional needs. For example, staff supported a patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and panic attacks by ensuring oxygen was available at their dialysis station.

Staff monitored patients closely during treatment. They used body composition monitoring (BCM) to assess fluid levels and checked for signs of fluid overload, such as oedema. They recorded patients’ weights before and after dialysis to guide safe fluid removal and prevent complications.

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

Staff communicated with patients, families and carers in ways they could understand and recorded communication needs effectively.

Staff spoke with patients, relatives and carers using clear and accessible language. They used communication aids where needed to support understanding and engagement in care.

Information was available to support patients’ knowledge and involvement. For example, haemodialysis shared care leaflets were available in reception, and information from the National Kidney Federation signposted patients to peer support services. Additional information could be adapted from online resources to meet individual needs.

Staff recorded patients’ communication needs on the electronic patient record system. This included any specific requirements or characteristics, which were available to staff to support consistent communication and personalised care.

This meant patients received information in a way they could understand, supporting their involvement in care and decision-making. Recording communication needs also helped staff provide consistent and individualised support across the team.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Patients provided consistently positive feedback about the service. We spoke with 12 patients, including those with complex needs, and their relatives or carers. Most told us they were very satisfied and spoke highly of the care they received. Staff supported patients to personalise their dialysis environment before treatment, which helped improve comfort and experience.

All 40 dialysis stations had call buzzers, and we saw staff respond promptly to requests, providing reassurance, comfort or pain relief. Staff regularly shared information from dialysis machines with patients and encouraged them to ask questions, helping them understand and engage in their care.

The service had clear processes for managing concerns and complaints. The registered manager (RM) encouraged concerns to be resolved locally where possible. There was always a daily point of contact, and complaints were recorded on both the host hospital’s patient advice and liaison service (PALS) system and the provider’s own system to ensure full investigation and oversight.

Patients and families could provide feedback through multiple channels, including surveys and feedback forms. The 2025 patient satisfaction survey included many positive comments, particularly about staff being caring and responsive. Leaders were developing a “you said, we will” action plan and had already made changes in response to feedback. For example, the provider replaced a failing water treatment plant between December 2025 and January 2026 to reduce treatment delays. They also made environmental improvements, including replacing lighting and ceiling tiles following patient feedback.

The service also supported patient involvement through digital tools, such as the “My Companion” app, which allowed patients to access their treatment information, results and guidance. Staff helped patients to access and use this where needed.

However, the patient satisfaction survey lacked clear timeframes and did not include detailed qualitative or quantitative analysis. This meant it was not always clear how feedback was collected, analysed or used to inform improvement. We also found some outdated signage still displayed in clinical and administrative areas.

Overall, the service actively sought and responded to patient feedback, making visible improvements to care and the environment. However, weaknesses in how feedback was analysed and presented limited assurance that all learning was systematically captured and used to drive ongoing improvement.

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

The provider had an up-to-date standard operating procedure (SOP) for managing patients who did not attend (DNA) appointments. Staff followed this process across both main and satellite clinics. All DNAs were escalated to the patient’s consultant and reviewed in monthly multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings. Staff told us some patients missed appointments because they were immunocompromised or concerned about infection risks when attending hospital sites.

The service followed a clear referral and admission process, which ensured patients were accepted appropriately and allocated a named nurse. This supported continuity of care and clear clinical oversight from the point of admission.

The service met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard and the Equality Act 2010. Staff followed an accessible information policy to provide information in a clear, consistent and inclusive way, supporting patients with different communication needs.

Leaders were working with the host hospital trust to introduce a patient advice sheet for those who did not attend appointments. At the time of our assessment, this was under review through policy processes.

The service worked in partnership with other healthcare providers. This included collaboration with the host hospital trust, other dialysis units and the regional patient transport service to support patient access to treatment.

This meant the service had systems in place to support equitable access and continuity of care. Patients were supported across different services, and risks such as non‑attendance were identified and escalated. However, some supporting processes were still being developed, which limited assurance that all initiatives were fully embedded.

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.

The service monitored non-attendance and took appropriate action to maintain patient safety and engagement.

Managers monitored rates of patients who did not attend (DNA) appointments and followed a structured escalation process. Staff took immediate action to contact patients who missed treatment. They first called the patient, then their next of kin if there was no response. If the patient’s whereabouts remained unknown, staff requested a welfare check through emergency services. Staff informed consultants when patients chose not to attend treatment, and regular non-attenders were discussed at multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings.

Staff worked with patients to support attendance and continuity of care. Where capacity allowed, they offered alternative dialysis slots to help patients maintain their treatment schedules and improve engagement.

We reviewed data for April 2026, which showed 46 missed appointments. Only 1 of these related to hospital admission, and the most common reason for non-attendance was patients being on holiday.

The provider also had a patient advisory board, which gave patients an opportunity to provide feedback and influence service development.

This meant the service had clear processes to identify and respond to non-attendance, including safeguarding actions where needed. Patients were supported to remain engaged with treatment, although missed appointments due to non-clinical reasons still occurred and could impact continuity of care.

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

Managers organised services to respond to changing demand within the local healthcare system. Staff accepted patients into the unit when satellite clinics were at capacity and arranged transfers once spaces became available. They coordinated transport where needed to support safe movement between services. Staff described how they also flexed capacity by temporarily reallocating patients between units to maintain access to treatment.

Staff supported patients to understand their care and make informed decisions. They explained dialysis processes and equipment in a clear way. Patients told us this helped them feel more confident and reduced anxiety about treatment.

This meant the service planned care proactively and adapted to both individual patient needs and wider system pressures. Patients benefited from flexible access to treatment and felt more informed and reassured about their care.