Great Bridge Kidney Treatment Centre

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

The service demonstrated a good standard of responsiveness to patients’ needs. Care and treatment were delivered in a flexible and person-centred way, with reasonable adjustments made to support access. Patients were able to raise concerns, and feedback was used to inform improvements, including communication and transport issues. Staff worked effectively with external partners to improve patient experience and access to care.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating has remained the same.

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 evidence showed a good standard. The service 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.

Staff completed training in learning disability and autism awareness, with a compliance rate of 100%. This supported staff in understanding and responding to the needs of patients with additional communication and care requirements.

The service had processes and policies in place to manage patients who did not attend their scheduled appointments. Where patients repeatedly failed to attend, escalation procedures were followed, which included contacting emergency services to request a welfare check at the patient’s home address by the police and ambulance service.

This demonstrated that the service took appropriate action to ensure patients’ safety and wellbeing and recognised the importance of patients receiving their prescribed care and treatment.

We reviewed 10 patient records, which clearly set out patients’ care and treatment, including their physical, mental, emotional and social needs. Where patient passports were required, these had been completed to reflect individual needs. However, there was no evidence that these documents had been subject to regular review.

During the inspection, we also observed staff providing care to a patient with a learning disability, and their identified needs were being met. This indicated that staff had the necessary knowledge and skills to recognise and respond to patients’ additional needs.

The service ensured that patients had blood tests undertaken on a monthly basis. These results were reviewed by the consultant, and where required, changes were made to patients’ care and treatment in response to clinical findings. This included adjustments to dialysis regimes and treatment duration to reflect patients’ assessed needs.

Patients told us that staff met their care, and treatment needs and demonstrated a good understanding of their treatment. Patients also reported that staff explained procedures and interventions clearly, including what they were doing and when. Some patients advised that they did not require detailed explanations due to their familiarity with the treatment, having undergone it on multiple occasions.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. We scored the service as 3.

There was evidence of effective multidisciplinary working, with staff liaising with external healthcare professionals to support coordinated care and treatment delivery. This included the local NHS trust, dieticians and consultants.

Systems were in place to promote continuity of care, including effective handover processes and communication arrangements when patients moved between services or required escalation of care.

Care and treatment were delivered in a flexible way, with adjustments made to treatment plans, including dialysis schedules and duration, to reflect individual patient needs and preferences.

The service did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

At the previous inspection, the service had been advised to review arrangements for supporting patients whose first language was not English. At this inspection, staff described a range of approaches, including using NHS trust documentation, support from family members, or staff who spoke the same language. However, there was inconsistency in staff responses, and the service was unable to evidence that key documentation was available in other languages at the time of inspection.

Post- inspection information demonstrated that some documents were available across the wider organisation; however, these were not effectively embedded within the service. This reduced assurance that patients with limited English proficiency were consistently supported to understand and be involved in decisions about their care and treatment.

Staff were asked about the use of alternative communication methods for patients who were non-verbal or had additional needs. Staff described using NHS trust documentation; however, this was not evidenced during the inspection. Post-inspection information included some visual support materials, such as dietary guidance with photographs. Despite this, there remained limited evidence of consistent documentation or tools to support patients with communication needs without reliance on family members or carers. This reduced assurance that all patients were fully supported to understand and engage in their care.

All patients’ records were kept in a locked cabinet and where only staff were able to assess these records.

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

Patients were aware of how to raise concerns about their care and treatment. Information was clearly displayed within the service, including posters which outlined the process for raising concerns. This supported patients to understand how to provide feedback or make a complaint.

The service had received 7 complaints from patients between April 2025 and April 2026. At the time of inspection, 1 complaint remained open, which had been raised in January 2026.

Themes identified within the complaints related primarily to communication. The service responded to these concerns by addressing them directly with relevant staff and reinforcing the importance of effective communication.

There was evidence that action had been taken in response to complaints, and this had contributed to a reduction in the number of complaints received.

The service had systems in place to gather and respond to patient feedback, including the use of an annual Patient Perception of Care survey. Feedback was reviewed at both local and organisational level, with clear expectations set for clinics to analyse results, identify themes and develop structured action plans. The provider promoted a ‘you said, we did’ approach, encouraging teams to translate feedback into measurable improvements and share learning with senior leaders. Evidence showed that feedback was used to inform actions to improve patient experience, demonstrating a commitment to listening to patients and using their views to drive service improvement.

The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Patients were able to access the service in a way that met their needs. Appointments were arranged flexibly, enabling patients to attend treatment at times that accommodated their individual circumstances, including those who attended treatment before work. This supported patients to maintain their usual routines alongside receiving care and treatment.

The service made reasonable adjustments to support patients’ individual needs. The environment was accessible, with all facilities located on 1 level, which enabled patients with mobility needs to access the service safely. The service also had suitable bathroom facilities which meant all patients could use these facilities.

Appropriate equipment was available to support patients requiring assistance with mobility, including the use of a hoist to facilitate safe transfers from wheelchairs to treatment beds. This supported the safe delivery of care and promoted patients’ independence and dignity.

Managers liaised with patient transport services on behalf of patients when there were delays in arrival or collection following treatment. This had been identified as a concern by patients.

Records demonstrated that the service acted on behalf of patients to escalate and address these issues, ensuring concerns were communicated and followed up with the relevant transport providers. This showed that the service advocated for patients and took action to support timely access to and from the service.

The evidence showed a good standard. 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 demonstrated a good understanding of patients who were vulnerable. Risk assessments were completed for each patient, which clearly identified individual risks and outlined appropriate actions to support patients using the service.

This supported staff to recognise and respond to vulnerabilities and ensured that care and treatment were delivered in a way that met patients’ individual needs and promoted their safety and wellbeing.

Staff had received training in diversity, inclusion and human rights, with a compliance rate of 100%. This meant that staff had the knowledge and understanding to deliver care in a way that respected patients’ individual differences, protected their rights, and promoted equality and inclusion in the delivery of care and treatment.

The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported by planning for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Leaders demonstrated a proactive and forward-looking approach to service development, using data and feedback to plan for future demand and improve service delivery. This supported a culture of continuous improvement and ensured the service remained responsive to patients’ needs.

The service had appropriate documentation in place to support patients’ care and treatment. Records clearly reflected patients’ needs, wishes and preferences, supporting the delivery of person-centred care.

Staff ensured that all relevant healthcare professionals and partner organisations were involved in the planning and delivery of care for patients with complex needs. This supported a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach and helped to ensure that care and treatment were responsive to patients’ individual circumstances.