• Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Dearne Valley NHS Dialysis Unit

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Montagu Hospital, Adwick Road, Mexborough, South Yorkshire, S64 0AZ (01709) 599190

Provided and run by:
Fresenius Medical Care Renal Services Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment of Dialysis services

Good practice

  • Leads encouraged shared care across the service. Staff clearly explained the process to patients, along with how to access and competently document their shared care. The service had shared care tasks of the month.

Areas for improvement

  • The service did not always follow the provider’s clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. For example, the RM had not completed sections of both the latest annual fire risk assessments from May and December 2025. They had scored the unit’s fire risk as 3; graded low, based on incomplete information. This meant they could not evidence all necessary fire hazards and mitigations had been acted upon.
  • We found 7 dialysis machines were slightly past their servicing date in mid-May 2026. One was overdue a service since January 2026. The RM notified technical support who would service these within a few weeks of our assessment.
  • Documentation did not always grade incidents by severity or categorise them into different themes. This meant the service could not evidence staff knew the service’s most severe and common incident types
  • The service did not investigate incidents in line with NHS England’s patient safety incident response framework (PSIRF). This contractual requirement was rolled out across all health and social care organisations up to autumn 2023. This meant service leads could not maximise learning opportunities across the organisation.
  • Service leads did not maintain their local risk register. This meant managers could not evidence that all potential risks to the service were considered, reviewed or updated to mitigate harm to patients, staff and visitors.

 

Improvement actions

The service should ensure infectious patients are always barriered to fully mitigate potential risks of exposure to unaware patients or visitors.

The provider should ensure leads and managers implement a formal or effective system in place to identify, address and monitor risks so managers and staff are aware of those which affect their service.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

Dearne Valley NHS Dialysis Unit is operated by Fresenius Medical Care renal services limited, an independent healthcare provider. It is a private medical dialysis unit in the grounds of Montagu Hospital, in the town of Mexborough. The unit primarily serves the communities of the South Yorkshire and surrounding areas as part of the Doncaster and Bassetlaw NHS Teaching Hospitals Foundation Trust. It also accepts patient referrals from outside the area.

It is contracted by the local NHS trust to provide renal dialysis to NHS patients over the age of 18. Patients are referred to the unit by the trust. The main referring unit is a local NHS renal unit.

It is a 12-station unit which treats 48 patients. The equipment used includes Fresenius dialysis machines for treating people with kidney failure.

The unit provides haemodialysis for stable patients with end stage renal disease or failure. They are open six days a week from Monday to Saturday at morning and afternoon sessions. There are no overnight facilities. There are two dialysis treatment sessions a day. As staff can treat up to 12 patients per session, they have capacity to dialyse 24 patients daily.

We last inspected the service in October 2017. This was to check progress against our warning notice from the comprehensive inspection in April 2017. We did not rate any domains.

On this assessment we spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, clinical secretary and six staff members.

 

15 April 2017 (and unannounced 12 May 2017)

During a routine inspection

Dialysis was the only service provided. We regulate this service but we do not currently have a legal duty to rate it. We highlight good practice and issues that service providers need to improve and take regulatory action as necessary.

We found the following issues that the service provider needs to improve:

  • We were not assured in regards to the grading of harm from incidents, the application of the duty of candour requirements and the learning from incidents to improve patient outcomes. The classification of clinical and non-clinical incidents should reflect the level of harm. Incidents were not reported clearly to ensure that the requirements of duty of candour regulation were met for example the non-clinical incident reporting form did not trigger duty of candour requirements for example patients falling and receiving an injury.

  • There was no formal way for staff to identify patients prior to medication been administered. We acknowledged that most patients were well known to the clinical team, however nursing staff must always adhere to Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) standards for medicines management. This includes being certain of the patients identity, checking the allergy status of the patient and expiry date of the medicines.

  • We were not assured there was an effective governance framework in place. Systems were not in place to effectively manage risk and safety. There was evidence incidents had not been reported or investigated effectively and as such, duty of candour requirements had not been implemented.

  • We were not assured that the clinic had a current up to date risk register that reflected all of the current risks to the unit. The clinic showed us a risk register, however post the inspections it was clear that this was a draft document. Failure to place risks on the register results in risks not being rated and the possibility of no one taking responsibility for taking actions forward.

  • The emergency drug tray was located on the bottom shelf of the resuscitation trolley and the trolley was not sealed. This does not provide assurance that the correct medication would be available during an emergency. It had been noted on the checklist that the drug box was not sealed as a point of observation by the pharmacist and staff, but no actions taken.

  • The clinic did not use a recognised early warning score system to support the recognition of the deteriorating patient. There was no sepsis policy and staff had not received training to recognise or manage this life threatening condition.

  • There was no process or protocol available to admit patients safely onto the dialysis unit to continue their dialysis treatment whilst they were an inpatient in the neighbouring organisation.

  • There was no process for audit of medicines management in the clinic. The policy did not outline that audit should be performed by the clinical team.

  • We were not assured that all performance and audit information was used to benchmark the unit’s performance against other dialysis clinics to improve patient outcomes including patient transfers and admissions into hospital.

  • The average number of patients with the recommended haemoglobin levels was 48.6%, April 2017. This meant that a number of patients had haemoglobin levels outside of the recommended range. Anaemia can be a complication of renal failure and dialysis associated with increased risks of mortality and cardiac complications.

  • There was no evidence the unit met National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) quality standards about patients being collected from home within 30 minutes of the allotted time and collected to return home within 30 minutes of finishing dialysis.

  • There was no unit patient involvement group where patients could make suggestions about the service or care of patents on the unit, or where staff could share information about the service with patients.

  • We saw none of the corporate policies had review dates on them. This meant up to date guidance and legislation may not be incorporated into the organisations policies.

However, we also found the following areas of good practice:

  • We found that the clinic was visibly clean and well maintained.
  • Staff worked flexibly and the rota was planned to ensure safe numbers of staff were available to meet patients' needs.
  • Nursing staff were experienced in providing dialysis care and training and competence records we reviewed showed that staff were well trained and competent to level the level of care expected.
  • We saw that policies and procedures were developed in line with guidance and standards from the UK renal association and these had been incorporated into the organisations standard for good renal care.
  • We observed that staff caring for patients were compassionate, caring and passionate about providing high quality dialysis care.
  • Patients we spoke with were consistently positive about the level of care they received.
  • The clinic provided a local satellite service, with flexible appointments for patients requiring dialysis. We observed a responsive approach to arranging appointments and the individual needs of patients.
  • The building met the core elements of provision for dialysis patients. This included level access and dedicated parking facilities.
  • The unit operated at around 94% capacity and so had spaces to accommodate for holiday treatment sessions for people staying in the local area, provided this had been approved and the patient accepted.
  • The registered manager was knowledgeable about the service, knew all the staff by name, and was clearly passionate and dedicated to the unit. The staff we spoke with spoke very positively about the registered manager and said that they felt able to speak with the manager and raise any concerns that they may have about the service. Staff also said the registered manager was visible and accessible and that they could speak with them at all times. Staff we spoke with also said they when they raised concerns that they felt listened too.
  • There was an overall organisation vision and strategy used in the unit. The unit had specific business objectives to achieve. The staff understood the organisational vision of “delivering the right care to the right patient at the right time”.

19 November 2013

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us they were given options about their treatment. One person said, 'The staff explained my treatment plan and gave me time to discuss it.' Another person said, 'Staff involve me in my treatment and I feel comfortable here.'

People who used the service told us they felt the clinic was very welcoming and relaxing. One person said, 'The staff are very pleasant and approachable.' Another said, 'The staff are very friendly and easy to talk to.'

People we spoke with said that the environment was always clean and tidy. Processes were in place to ensure equipment used were clean and safe. We spoke with four people who used the service and they were all satisfied with the cleanliness of the unit. One person said, 'It's spotless here all the time.'

We found that people who used the service were supported by enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet their needs.

The service had a process in place to monitor people's views about the service offered. People we spoke with told us that they had never had to complain about the service.

10 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We found that people who used the service consented to their care and treatment. People felt in control of their own treatment. One person said 'If I need to end my treatment earlier than planned, I talk to the manager and sign a consent form.'

People had care records which reflected the needs of each individual. People were able to contribute to their care and treatment record. One person said, 'The staff discuss my treatment with me and explain what is happening.' Another person said, 'Staff support me and meet my needs.'

People who used the service felt safe and told us that the staff were very caring. We observed staff interacting with people and they were calm and polite in their manner. One person said, 'The staff are really nice here.'

The provider worked well with other professionals. Appropriate information was passed to others in a confidential manner.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work. We looked at the employment records of staff which were kept electronically.

People knew how to complain if they needed to. The complaints procedure was available in the patient guide book. One person said, 'I have never had to complain but if I had a problem I would tell the staff.' Another person said, 'Staff would sort anything out if I needed them to.'