• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Assure Dialysis Services, Smethwick

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 2, Rabone Park, Smethwick, Birmingham, West Midlands, B66 2NN (0121) 371 8321

Provided and run by:
Assure Dialysis Services Ltd

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 8 June 2023

Assure Dialysis Services, Smethwick provides dialysis treatment to its patients living throughout the midland’s region. The unit is open 7 am to midnight on Monday and Wednesdays and 7am to 7pm on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday’s. The service provides a mixture of morning, afternoon and twilight sessions to an average of 172 patients per week. Patients are funded by the NHS Integrated Care Board in the local area and patients of the local NHS trust who works closely with the service.

The service provides haemodialysis which is the process of removing waste products from the blood of patients whose kidneys do not work properly for adult patients over the age of 18 years. Typically, patients attended the service 3 times a week for 4 hours each time. In January 2023 the service carried out 2,073 dialysis treatments for 180 patients and between February 2022 and January 2023, 2,136, patients underwent 25,006 treatments at the service.

The service has been registered since 2015 to carry out the following regulated activities.

Treatment of disease, disorder or injury

At the time of the inspection there was not a substantive registered manager in place although the service was engaged in the registered manager application process. The last inspection that took place at the service was in June 2017. This inspection was not rated however, enforcement action was issued due to breaches identified in Regulation 12 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Safe care and treatment 12(1)(2)(b)(g), and Regulation 17 HSCA (RA) Regulations 2014 Good Governance 17(1)(2)(b). The link to the previous inspection report can be found at https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-2079191997/contact

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 8 June 2023

The service had not been rated before. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills. Staff kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available to suit patients' needs.
  • Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • Infection, prevention and control practices did not follow statutory requirements, clinical observations were not monitored in line with national guidance, medicines were not always stored safely and safeguarding training compliance was low.
  • Consent and pain were not routinely reviewed nor recorded.
  • The service did not always identify and escalate relevant risks and issues or identify actions to reduce their impact.