Forest Dialysis Unit

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This service was previously inspected and rated Good in 2024. This key question at this inspection has stayed the same.

We looked for evidence that people and communities had the best possible outcomes with their needs assessed. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. There was input from the local trust and there was a dedicated dietitian for the people who used services. The service monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

Blood results and other key performance indicators were regularly monitored and discussed to optimise patient outcomes. The service undertook a regular, monthly notes audit and identified areas of noncompliance.

However, the unit was still working to establish a system to record both onsite visits, patient specific visits and reviews.

This service scored 12 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

The service mostly planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to people.

Staff gave people clear information about the care and treatment needed to support both their physical and mental health.

Specialist support from dietitians was available for all patients as per national guidance. Dietitians from the referring trust attended the service to see patients, assess dietary needs and provide advice and guidance on renal diets. Patients said they could get the advice they needed.

On our previous inspection we found regular quality assurance meetings involving the lead consultant responsible for patient care were not always happening. On this assessment, data supplied showed the unit monitored dates of consultant visits which showed that between April and September 2025 the consultant had visited and reviewed patients in 4 out of 6 months. In the 2 months where a face-to-face visit had not happened, evidence of actions such as remote reviews and consultant leave was clearly recorded. However, records acknowledged there was not always clear written evidence to show which patients had been reviewed. The unit was working towards a more robust system to evidence each visit, and patient specific visits.

The service undertook a regular, monthly notes audit which showed between 89% to 100% compliance between January 2025 and September 2025. Where areas of noncompliance were identified, actions were clearly recorded.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. There is no previous rating for the Effective key question so we cannot yet publish a score for this area.