Diaverum Dialysis Clinic - Rotherham

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

We inspected the service in 2017 but at the time we did not rate dialysis services.

At this assessment, the key question has been rated Good:

We found people were supported and treated with dignity and respect, and involved as partners in their care. We looked for evidence people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked people’s privacy and dignity was respected. Patients understood that their experience of how they were treated and supported, mattered to those who cared for them. We also found evidence every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respected their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them. When patients passed away, staff found ways to pay tribute to them within the clinic and with other patients who knew them.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff also treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed good relationships between staff and patients whilst on site. Staff remained courteous, friendly, professional and polite during all interactions with patients. Patients we spoke with told us that they had good relationships with staff and that staff were kind, helpful and supportive. Staff also told us that there were positive working relationships within the unit which allowed them to deliver care and treatment to patients in a way that respected their dignity and personal wishes. They recognised the challenges patients receiving dialysis faced and worked hard to make the patients’ experiences as pleasant as possible.

There were no screens or curtains between treatment stations when they were in use, however, they were available upon request if a patient wished for privacy or needed support with personal care. There were also two single rooms, usually used by patients with infection control risks, which could be used if a patient preferred to be on their own. We saw these in use for both reasons during our assessment.

The provider 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 well being.

The clinic offered a range of different appointment times to support patient choice. We heard from the reception staff how they worked with patients to try to be as flexible as possible in offering alternative appointments, if a person was unable to attend their treatment session or wished to have a shorter session.

All the information for patients that we saw was in English, but staff told us that they had access to translation and interpreting services via the local Trust if it was needed and could access resources in different languages if needed. They also told us that at the time of the assessment there had been no need for alternative language leaflets but were aware of the process to access them if this situation changed.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and well being.

We saw individualised care plans in patient records during our visit. We also saw patients being supported to take responsibility for their own treatment if that was their choice.

Patients could choose dialysis sessions which suited their lifestyle and fit around their lives, including sessions on a Saturday.

Patients told us they were involved in discussions about their care needs and able to contribute to discussions about when and how their care was delivered. Staff told us they encouraged people to make decisions about their treatment because it played a significant part of their lives and by doing this, patients were less likely to miss sessions.

There were processes in place for ensuring that consent for treatment was fully informed, including consent and waiver forms where patients opted to shorten their treatment time or extend the time between sessions.

The provider 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. However, health records did not always include information about how to manage patients additional health conditions.

Patients told us staff were attentive and if they felt unwell or needed support staff responded to offer reassurance and any treatment that might be needed. Patients were content with the support they received and told us they had no concerns about having to wait for support.

We noted that some patients had additional health conditions such as epilepsy however, their care records did not have additional care plans in place to inform staff of actions to take in, for example the case of a seizure or exacerbation. This was a breach of Regulation 12 – Safe Care and Treatment. We highlighted this to the unit manager at the time of assessment, and they initiated a review of patients’ records to make sure such care plans were included in care records. After the assessment, they confirmed that this had taken place with additional care plans added where appropriate.

We observed patient care including conversations between staff and patients during dialysis and saw staff were attentive, compassionate and responded to patients’ needs quickly.

The provider cared about and promoted the well being of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The management team of the service was stable and had been in place for a number of years.

Staff we spoke with told us that they felt supported by their line managers who offered them support and worked with them to promote work life balance. They also told us they were encouraged to develop their skills and competencies.

Leaders told us about support they could give staff who needed reasonable adjustments to help them to successfully carry out their roles. The service had enough staff to meet the needs of patients and deliver person centred care.