North Devon Satellite Dialysis Unit

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

We looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs. At our last assessment this key question was not inspected. At this assessment we rated this key question as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

Care was planned so that the satellite dialysis unit treated patients whose conditions weren’t as complicated as patients seen by the local NHS Trust. Patients needs and preferences were respected.

The service had plans to implement a named nurse system to ensure patients received continuity of care and ensure responsibility for care planning was clearly designated to a nominated registered nurse.

Patients said they felt safe receiving treatment at the unit.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

There were strong links with the local NHS trust. Managers alerted the local NHS Trust around any vacant slots the service had so these could be filled with appropriate patients. There were clear pathways for patients to be transferred to the trust if they became unwell.

Admission criteria was set out, so all patients irrespective of age, gender, race, religion, belief or sexual orientation could access the services. Patients were required to be stable and required medical approval, from their lead consultant, for their suitability to have haemodialysis at the unit.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service complied with the Accessible Information Standard. We saw information could be provided in different languages and there were processes to use should a person using services require translation services.

The service had information governance systems which kept patient records confidential.

We scored the service as 3. 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 knew how to complain and raise concerns. Patients said they were able to raise issues with staff members and these concerns were addressed by staff immediately. We saw evidence that when patients complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

Staff knew how to handle complaints appropriately. Patients were informed how to make a formal complaint and if they were not satisfied with the response, where to go to take their complaint further.

Patient surveys were carried out by the provider. We saw the unit used the information from the survey to improve services. For example the service was bringing in the named nurse system to improve communication between the care team and the patient. The service had a feedback box for patients to post any ideas for improvement or complaints.

We scored the service as 3. 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.

The service was accessible for the people identified as medically suitable for the service. There were accessible toilets and the service was wheelchair accessible. There was level access to the building which was all on one floor. Patients had emergency call bells to use if help was required and there was ample parking for people using the services.

We scored the service as 3. 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. All staff had completed Equality, Diversity and Inclusion training.

We observed patients being treated with care and consideration.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard.People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff were aware about patients’ resuscitation orders. The staff held a log which lists the patient’s decision and the frequency that this was to be reviewed. End of life planning was managed through discussions between the patient, family, GP and renal consultant.