Diaverum Dialysis Clinic - Rotherham

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

At this assessment we rated the location. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We assessed 7 quality statements from this key question.

We found that all service-users had individualised care plans in place, which reflected their own personal needs and choices. Patients could access care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. The service had good links with Trust partners, and were able to escalate any concerns quickly.

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.

People who used services were able to access the service 6 days a week and were mostly offered a choice of session to receive their treatment. This helped patients choose to have their dialysis at a time that suited them and their lifestyle.

Patients told us staff delivered care and support that met their needs. Staff worked with them to make sure their treatment was delivered in the way they wished it to be. They said they felt safe in the unit.

The provider had a policy to support the management of missed appointments. All missed appointments were followed up by telephone contact and when staff could not make contact, a welfare visit was requested to ensure that the patient was safe. Staff then worked with the service user to try to arrange another suitable appointment so that treatment outcomes were not compromised.

Staff knew their patients well and were able to quickly respond to changes in their presentation and condition whilst receiving dialysis, such as in an emergency or if they felt unwell.

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.

The unit had strong links to the renal ward and staff within the main acute Trust site and doctors visited the unit to see their patients. This meant any changes in patient treatment needs or health conditions were quickly discussed and addressed by the multi-disciplinary team. For example, staff had close working relationships with dieticians and consultants through regular meetings as well as ad hoc communication via telephone and email as needed, promoting joined up care.

The unit had admission criteria so all adult patients, irrespective of age, gender, race, religion, belief or sexual orientation, who met the clinical criteria could access the service.

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 thus helping to reduce any patient anxiety.

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

We saw notice boards in the waiting area with a range of relevant information displayed. There were posters with contact details for support groups, information on how to provide feedback, how to complain and what to do in an emergency if they became unwell.

We also saw examples of patient educational materials presented in clear text with pictures to support. All the materials we saw were printed in English, but the service was able to provide the information in a variety of languages if needed. However, the service told us that the vast majority of their patients had English as a first language. Staff were aware of not using family members as interpreters and would use an interpreting service, if this was needed.

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 told us they could express their opinions openly without fear of any repercussions. They were comfortable to voice their preferences in relation to treatment and care wishes and felt listened to.

There was information within the unit about how to raise a concern or complaint and who to speak with if patients were unhappy about any aspect of their dialysis. None of the patients we spoke with had felt the need to raise a complaint about their care or treatment however, several told us they had expressed their disappointment at light snacks being removed from the unit. This was due to logistical difficulties. The unit had listened to patients and were in the process of reinstating them.

The unit encouraged feedback from people so they could make changes and improvements if things weren’t working as well as they could be. For example, reintroduced snacks and drinks were pre ordered to cater for patient preferences.

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

The service offered a wide range of appointment times and worked with people to try to give them a choice of dialysis session times when possible. Patients could mostly get the treatment slots they requested. The unit was able to flex appointments to work with patients to help support them to attend the required number of dialysis sessions. Where a patient did not attend, the unit followed up with patients to identify any issues. They were able to work together to offer additional sessions at a time to suit the patient.

The clinic was on the ground floor, which supported wheelchair access. There were also wheelchair accessible scales available for patients who required them and equipment to support people who needed additional support with mobility or disabilities.

There was some parking available for patients in the surrounding area within close proximity to the unit however, many patients arrived using patient transport services.

Several members of staff spoke languages other than English and interpreters were accessible if this was needed for a patient whose first language was not English. The unit was also able to access other communication support should this be needed, such as sign language.

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 unit supported patients with additional needs such as neurodivergence and communication needs by working closely with them to find ways to make dialysis sessions better and easier to tolerate. This meant fewer instances of dialysis sessions being missed or cut short.

Patient health outcomes were monitored to make sure they were receiving the optimum benefit from their dialysis, and treatment regimens were modified in conjunction with patients and their clinical team when this was not the case.

Patients told us they felt able to give feedback if they were unhappy or concerned about something within the unit and would be listened to and gave us examples of when they had done this.

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. However staff were not always clear about patient resuscitation status.

Staff were mostly aware of patients’ wishes and these were documented in patients' records. However, during our assessment we saw there was some confusion about whether a patient had a DNACPR in place. We asked the provider to make sure it was clear for all patients and that their wishes were clearly documented.

Staff told us they regularly reviewed and revisited patients’ decisions to make sure they were still appropriate, correct and what the patient wanted and made changes if this was appropriate.

Staff facilitated difficult discussions and where appropriate and in line with patient wishes, involved family and loved ones in those discussions. We observed such a discussion between a patient, their loved one and a member of staff. The conversation was handled carefully and respectfully. Patients said they felt supported by staff to make decisions about their future, such as whether they wished to be resuscitated or at end of life as they grew older. They said staff made sure they understood the choices they had and what each meant, for them.