KC Dialysis Centre

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of KC Dialysis Limited (the provider) on 8 September 2021. The service has not been inspected under its current registration but was last inspected in 2017 under a previous registration as a different legal entity.

At this inspection we inspected our five key questions: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led. Before the inspection we reviewed information, we had about the provider, including information we received and intelligence available. The inspection had a short (30 minutes) announcement.

We rated safe as requires improvement and effective, caring, responsive and well-led as good.

We rated the service as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records and collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough to eat and drink. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients. Staff in patients’ usual place of receiving dialysis were contacted to share relevant information about patient treatment. Staff were competent to carry out their roles and received annual appraisals and had access to continuous professional development. Staff obtained consent from patients and recorded this.
• 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.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of patients coming from different parts of the country, took account of patients’ individual needs and made it easy for patients to give feedback. Patients 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 with patients to plan and manage services to meet their needs.

However:

• Patients’ own medicines were not clearly labelled. Staff did not always give medicines as recommended. Staff did not confirm patients identity before they administered medicines.
• Incidents were not always investigated to identify actions to improve patient care and treatment.
• Substances hazardous to health were not always stored securely.
• Confidential information about patients were not always stored securely.
• A recruitment process for directors of the service had not been undertaken to confirm they were fit to run the service at the time of appointment.