You are here

Archived: Sheffield Dialysis Unit

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 11 May 2011
Date of Publication: 2 June 2011
Inspection Report published 2 June 2011 PDF | 148.1 KB

Contents menu

People should be cared for in safe and accessible surroundings that support their health and welfare (outcome 10)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing.

How this check was done

We reviewed all the information we hold about this provider, carried out a visit on 11/05/2011, checked the provider's records, observed how people were being cared for, looked at records of people who use services, reviewed information from people who use the service, talked to staff and talked to people who use services.

Our judgement

We found people who use services and people who work in the location are in safe, accessible surroundings that promote their wellbeing. No gaps in assurance or areas of concern were identified during the assessment of this outcome for this location.

User experience

On the site visit we talked to five patients about the general environment. All were preferred the location of the unit and its spaciousness, with some expressing they preferred it to the NHS trust’s own renal services located at the Northern General Hospital.

Some explained there are difficulties in relation to the general temperature of the clinical area. Further discussion with the patient’s and unit manager revealed this was because some patients feel cold while receiving dialysis, which means the staff members have to keep the ambient temperature higher. Unfortunately this means those patients who are already warm may feel more uncomfortable. It was recognised by the patients the difficulty of pleasing all people in an open plan shared environment.

When each patient was asked to name one area of the service they would like to improve, one patient explained during the adverse winter weather last year the floor in the reception area became very wet making it particularly “slippery” for the patient as they use crutches. The floor in the reception area is laminate flooring and the patient suggested it might be useful for there to be a “strip of non slip flooring”. This suggestion was passed to the unit manager for consideration.

Other evidence

The provider declared compliance with this outcome at this location at registration with CQC October 2010 and our quality and risk profile (QRP) was checked.

We did not request a provider compliance assessment record for this outcome. The providers last ‘health and safety audit’ completed 8 September 2010, demonstrated that the location had been internally assessed compliant against a number of areas relevant to the outcomes of this standard, for example, risk assessments, fire safety measures, general site safety along with other areas.

On the site visit conducted 11 May 2011 we found a modern spacious environment, relatively free of clutter in the patient areas. The building appeared to be well maintained with appropriate signage and fire equipment, which had been checked annually.

We found no evidence on the site visit that suggested there were areas of non compliance with this outcome.