Clacton-on-Sea 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Caring.

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.

We observed that nursing and support staff consistently treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion, while respecting their privacy and dignity. This respectful approach extended to their interactions with colleagues, fostering a supportive and considerate working environment.

We spoke with 5 patients, all of whom provided positive feedback about their experience. They also stated that staff were attentive to their needs, including arranging food for patients who were required to wait for transport home. This was appreciated by patients and contributed positively to their overall experience.

Staff supported patients to understand and manage their care and treatment.

Patients and their relatives were able to provide feedback about the service and the care they received.

Staff supported patients to share their views and experiences. Patients gave examples of being encouraged to complete feedback surveys while undergoing treatment, demonstrating that opportunities to provide feedback were accessible and embedded within the patient journey.

Staff said they could raise concerns about disrespectful, discriminatory or abusive behaviour or attitudes from patients without fear of the consequences.

Staff maintained the confidentiality of patient information. Clinical records were held in both electronic and paper formats. Staff accessed electronic records using individual password-protected accounts, ensuring appropriate access controls were in place. Paper records were stored securely in locked cabinets when not in use.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of patients’ individual needs, including their personal, cultural, social, and religious requirements. Patients provided examples of staff adapting care and treatment arrangements to meet their specific circumstances. One patient described how staff managed their treatment schedule to enable them to visit a relative who was unwell in hospital. Staff also gave examples of making reasonable adjustments to appointment times, such as swapping appointments between patients when one found morning appointments difficult to attend and another found evening appointments challenging.

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 reasonable adjustments for patients, for example, by ensuring accessible entry to the premises and meeting individuals’ specific communication needs.

Patients with mobility difficulties could access the service easily as the main service was located on the ground floor. Corridors and doors were wide, which meant wheelchair users could get through easily.

Information leaflets were available for patients in the waiting area. These were available in larger fonts and other languages upon request.

Managers ensured that staff and patients had access to interpreter services and language support when required. Staff were able to access interpreters and language line services to support effective communication with patients whose first language was not English, helping to ensure patients could understand information about their care and treatment and participate in decisions about their care.

To support individual dietary requirements and preferences, patients generally chose to bring their own food and drinks. However, refreshments, including drinks and biscuits, were available for patients who wished to have them while attending the service. This helped to ensure patients had access to light refreshments during their treatment or while waiting for transport home.

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.

Staff told us about how they ensured that patients received clear information about their care and treatment, providing details in advance about what to expect at each stage of their treatment journey.

Staff tried to accommodate patients' dialysis sessions at a suitable time of day where possible and gave examples.

Staff supported patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. All patients were reviewed monthly by a renal consultant, providing regular opportunities to discuss their treatment regimen and participate in decisions about their ongoing care. During these appointments, patients’ blood results and medications were reviewed with them, and they were involved in discussions regarding any proposed changes to their treatment. In addition, patients had a named nurse during each dialysis session, with whom they could discuss any concerns, ask questions, and seek further information about their care.

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 completed safety checks. We observed staff completing safety checks before, during and after treatment.

Patients could summon staff with a call bell and had a named nurse, ensuring continuous monitoring and individualised support.

Staff were able to describe the process they would follow if a patient’s condition deteriorated, in line with the service’s policy.

Patients were provided with contact details to call in the event of any issues.

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 had access to resources and facilities for safe working. This included being able to take breaks, designated rest areas, and showering facilities.

Staff consistently reported feeling respected, supported, and valued within the service. There was a strong sense of pride and positivity about working for the provider and being part of their team. New staff described their induction experience as welcoming and well-structured, enabling them to settle in quickly and feel confident in their roles.
Teams worked and where relevant learnt together. We observed a senior nurse supporting a junior nurse whilst undertaking the medicines round.

Staff reported feeling valued and supported by both their leaders and colleagues. They described a positive team culture in which their views were listened to and respected. Staff also had opportunities to contribute to service development and were encouraged to share ideas to improve patient experience. For example, staff suggested introducing activities such as bingo and quiz games for patients to participate in during dialysis sessions.

The provider recognised staff success within the service. Staff gave examples of how their efforts were acknowledged by the provider, including organised social events, such as meals out, to acknowledge staff contributions and achievements.

We saw posters displaying information on how to keep safe during journeys to work and access to free events to support mental health and wellbeing of NHS and paid care workers.

Staff appraisals included discussions about career development and opportunities for professional growth. Staff told us they were supported and encouraged to further develop their knowledge and skills, including attending specialised renal courses relevant to their roles.

Staff had access to support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an occupational health service and wellbeing app.

The service’s staff sickness and absence were similar to the average for the provider.