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 safe from harm from unsafe or unsuitable equipment (outcome 11)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are not at risk of harm from unsafe or unsuitable equipment (medical and non-medical equipment, furnishings or fittings).
  • Benefit from equipment that is comfortable and meets their needs.

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 no gaps in assurance that may suggest people who use services or staff members would be put at risk from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because measures are in place to ensure that equipment is properly maintained, suitable for its purpose and used safely.

User experience

It was not possible to gain the direct views of people who use the service for this outcome.

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.

As part of the assessment of this location the provider submitted a ‘provider compliance assessment’ record for this outcome, which outlined in detail how it is currently meeting each part of the outcome. The provider’s 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 safety and management of equipment. Two issues were identified in relation to equipment safety, one relating to overfilled shelves and one relating cylinder trolleys but these were reported as actioned.

Additional evidence was also submitted in relation to this outcome, including “Equipment, maintenance/calibration frequency, tolerances and responsibility list” along with a copy of the 2011 equipment maintenance plans for the location.

On the site visit staff members explained that equipment was repaired promptly and reported no problems in relation to equipment generally.

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