North Devon Satellite Dialysis Unit

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment this key question was not inspected. At this assessment we rated this key question as good. People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Patients said staff treated them well and behaved appropriately towards them. We observed positive interactions between nursing staff and patients. Staff remained courteous and polite during all interactions with patients.

Results from the patient survey in 2024 reported strong positive feedback on the metrics ‘My care team treats me with kindness’ and ‘My care team treats me with respect’. Patients reported that they were happy with the quality of care received at the dialysis centre.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service made adjustments for patients and tried to accommodate specific requests for appointment times.

Staff ensured that patients could obtain information on treatments, local services, patients’ rights and how to complain.

Staff made information leaflets available in languages spoken by patients. The service had access to an interpretation service.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People who used services were aware they were allowed visitors. We observed a wife sitting with her husband whilst he received dialysis.

Patients who used services had access to television screens and the internet whilst they were having treatment. The service had purchased new television remote controls; however, these were often lost and patients shared remaining remote controls.

Patients said they could get the treatment slots they requested.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff identified and responded to changing risks to patients. We saw examples of incidents where a patient deteriorated and an ambulance was called. This happened in a timely manner and staff followed the deteriorating patient policy. Staff were able to access support from relevant clinicians when required.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues, such as falls or pressure ulcers and planned for these accordingly. Patients said staff are “brilliant, nothing is too much trouble”. Patients were confident to raise any concerns with the registered manager.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued. The new registered manager had been in post for approximately 8 months at the time of the inspection. Staff had only positive comments about their management of the unit. One staff member said, ‘The mix of staff cultures is good and they believed the unit had improved since the new registered manager had arrived’.

Staff breaks were scheduled. Staff we spoke with said management were supportive if they required extra breaks.

The provider recognised staff success within the service through regular staff awards.

Staff appraisals included conversations about career development and how it could be supported. We reviewed 6 staff appraisals and saw this was discussed and plans put in place to support staff development.