KC Dialysis Centre

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 the same. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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.

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.

Feedback from patients demonstrated that staff consistently treated people with kindness, compassion and respect. Patients described the unit as a "very welcoming family run unit" and reported staff helped to alleviate anxieties associated with receiving treatment away from their parent unit, making the experience positive and reassuring. Others commented staff were "very helpful" and delivered an "excellent standard of care", while another patient stated staff "make you feel welcome" and you "feel part of the family". These comments reflected caring relationships between staff and patients and showed people experienced a warm, supportive and person-centred culture.

Interactions between staff and patients were observed to be caring, friendly and compassionate. One patient described attending the service as "a gift" as it had enabled them to take a holiday for the first time in three years.

Another patient described staff as "lovely", stating they felt relaxed and care felt personal. They told us they felt welcomed, supported and valued, and commented unlike some other services where "you are just a number", staff provided a more individualised and compassionate experience.

During the observation of care, staff maintained the patient's dignity by seeking consent at each stage of treatment, checking allergies, explaining interventions, and providing reassurance throughout dialysis.

The service's patient feedback analysis report for April 2025 to March 2026 received 53 responses, with all respondents stating they would recommend the service and all reporting satisfaction with the care and treatment they received.

Patients frequently described staff as professional, friendly and caring, reflecting positive therapeutic relationships and a compassionate approach to care delivery. Feedback indicated staff created a welcoming and supportive environment that helped to humanise the dialysis experience.

Patients also spoke positively about the cleanliness and comfort of the unit, which contributed to their overall experience and sense of wellbeing. For the second consecutive year, no concerns or complaints were raised through the Friends and Family Test or other feedback channels, providing further assurance that people consistently experienced dignified, compassionate care.

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.

Feedback demonstrated care was personalised and responsive to individual needs and circumstances. Patients attending for holiday dialysis reported positive experiences of accessing treatment away from their home units and highlighted the efforts staff made to ensure they felt comfortable and supported throughout their visits. One patient described the centre as having a "homely, professional and personal" feel and noted staff kept them reassured throughout treatment. Another reviewer stated they would return to the service during future visits, reflecting confidence in the personalised care provided.

Patients also valued the welcoming environment and the measures taken to enhance their treatment experience, including social interaction, refreshments and amenities that helped make treatments more comfortable. Feedback indicated staff recognised people as individuals and adapted their approach to meet personal preferences and circumstances, contributing to positive experiences and continuity of care while away from home.

Staff worked collaboratively with patients, carers and referring organisations to ensure care was tailored to individual needs. Good communication with carers was evident, and arrangements were adapted to meet specific support requirements where needed. The service also recognised that some patients may require additional support with communication and confirmed interpreter services could be accessed if required, although staff reported family members or carers had usually provided communication support when needed.

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 were supported to be involved in decisions about their care and treatment. During the observation of a patient's first treatment at the centre, staff took time to explain what to expect, checked the patient's understanding, answered questions and agreed a treatment plan with them. The patient was asked about previous side effects experienced during dialysis and was involved in discussions regarding fluid removal targets and monitoring arrangements. Staff also offered choices during treatment, including the positioning of equipment and confirming the patient's preferences regarding ongoing observations.

Feedback demonstrated people were actively involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Most patients reported feeling included in treatment planning and described a collaborative approach to care, which supported their autonomy and enabled them to make informed decisions about their health and wellbeing.

Feedback from another patient demonstrated people were actively involved in planning and managing their care. They reported that "everything is explained" and that they were "very involved" in decisions about treatment, with staff consulting them regularly. The patient described how appointments were arranged around their individual requirements and confirmed they knew how to raise concerns should they wish to do so. This demonstrated that people were provided with information, encouraged to ask questions and supported to exercise choice and control over their care and treatment.

Patient feedback also showed staff supported people to understand and engage with their care. One patient reported that staff "always make time when I need a question answered or I am not sure about something.

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.

Patients consistently reported staff were approachable, available when needed and responsive to concerns, contributing to positive therapeutic relationships and a culture of kindness and respect.

Patient feedback demonstrated that staff responded promptly and effectively to people's needs during treatment. One patient described how staff closely monitored and managed an episode of low blood pressure, providing reassurance and helping them feel "very safe and very secure". Another patient reported that staff were "always here" when needed and that they felt well supported throughout their treatment. Patients also highlighted that staff took time to answer questions, explain care and respond to concerns, with one patient commenting that staff "always make time when I need a question answered or am not sure about something".

Patient call bells were available; however, the open-plan layout and continuous nursing presence meant patients could readily ask for assistance when required. We observed nurses responding promptly to patient needs throughout the inspection.

The service maintained systems to support a timely response to emergencies and patient needs. Records showed fixed panic alarms, remote alarms and emergency pull cord systems were tested weekly, with documented checks completed from January to July. These arrangements provided assurance that staff could promptly help and respond effectively should patients require urgent support during treatment.

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.

Due to the small size of the organisation with only two staff, formal staff surveys and staff forums were not used. However, staff wellbeing, training needs, service delivery and governance matters were discussed regularly through ongoing communication and routine management meetings, providing opportunities for staff to raise concerns, share feedback and contribute to service development.

The service supported staff through regular supervision, annual appraisals, mandatory training and continuing professional development opportunities, helping to maintain competence and professional growth. Staff were also supported through annual leave arrangements and flexible working where appropriate.

Access to occupational health advice could be arranged through external providers when required, and staff had access to additional professional support and guidance through their professional bodies and indemnity organisations. These arrangements helped ensure staff felt supported in their roles and had access to the training, development and wellbeing resources necessary to deliver safe and effective care.