KC Dialysis Centre

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

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.

The service worked collaboratively with patients' home dialysis units to ensure care was tailored to individual needs and preferences while away from home. Treatment documentation and medication plans were provided by the referring unit, helping to ensure continuity of care and adherence to established treatment regimes. Patients who brought their own medicines or dialysis-related solutions had these documented, securely managed and returned following treatment, supporting personalised care arrangements and maintaining consistency with their usual treatment plans.

Patients also told us the service enabled them to continue activities important to them, such as taking holidays despite living with kidney failure. Feedback reflected appreciation for staff professionalism, kindness, and efforts to make treatment as comfortable as possible. Patients described the unit as highly professional, praised its strong reputation, and expressed gratitude for the consistently high standard of care provided, with several stating they would readily return for treatment in the future.

The service sought to meet patients' individual needs during treatment. Managers explained that the unit rarely operated at full capacity, which enabled staff to provide personalised support and respond to patient preferences. Patients requiring psychological, emotional or specialist support beyond the scope of the service were referred back to their home renal unit to ensure continuity of care and access to appropriate services.

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.

The service worked effectively with external healthcare providers to ensure seamless, coordinated care for patients with complex needs. Staff collaborated with the patient's rehabilitation centre, home renal unit and specialist pharmacist to agree treatment arrangements, confirm prescriptions, obtain specialist medication and establish appropriate monitoring requirements before treatment commenced. This proactive information sharing and multidisciplinary working ensured continuity of care, enabled the patient to safely receive haemodialysis while away from their usual provider, and supported positive outcomes and a positive patient experience.

Collaborative working with NHS renal units, Integrated Care Boards and international dialysis providers further supported the sharing of information and continuity of care for patients receiving holiday dialysis.

The service maintained positive working relationships with relevant NHS trusts and renal units. Where concerns arose about a patient during haemodialysis treatment, staff liaised promptly with the patient's home renal team or referring NHS trust to share information and ensure appropriate follow-up and continuity of care.

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

Patients received clear and relevant information before, during and after their dialysis treatment. This included information about their treatment plan, clinical observations, post-treatment care, and when to seek medical advice. Patients were encouraged to ask questions and raise concerns, and information was provided in a way that met their individual communication needs, with reasonable adjustments made where required to support understanding and involvement in their care.

Patient feedback demonstrated staff supported patients to feel informed, reassured and involved in their care. Reviews highlighted how staff took time to explain treatment, respond to concerns and provide reassurance during dialysis sessions. Patients reported feeling confident in the care provided and several stated they would choose to return to the service in the future and would recommend it to others.

The service had arrangements to support patients with communication needs through access to professional translation and interpretation services. These services could be accessed for patients whose first language was not English, helping to ensure effective communication and enabling patients to receive information about their care and treatment in a language they could understand.

Patient information leaflets were available within the unit to provide health promotion and treatment-related information. Staff told us that information from referring renal units was reviewed before treatment to ensure patients received appropriate care and advice during their stay.

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.

The service actively sought and responded to patient feedback to improve the care experience. Feedback was obtained through verbal comments, thank you cards, friends and family test responses, Facebook reviews and google reviews. A dedicated patient website was also available to support communication and access to information.

Patients told staff they valued flexibility around treatment times when travelling or on holiday, and the service maintained a flexible scheduling approach to support individual needs. Feedback also highlighted the importance of having time to discuss treatment and health concerns, and the service ensured sufficient time between appointments to enable meaningful conversations, education, and involvement in care decisions.

Feedback was reviewed through governance processes, with actions taken where improvements were identified. Patients also influenced changes to the dialysis environment, including measures to improve comfort, such as the provision of blankets, pillows, refreshments, temperature adjustments, regular comfort checks, and maintaining a calm and welcoming atmosphere during treatment.

The service had not received any formal complaints since commencing operations. However, patients were encouraged to raise concerns, comments, or suggestions, and staff addressed issues promptly at the point of care wherever possible. An accessible complaints policy and procedure was available to all patients, ensuring they knew how to raise concerns if required.

The service told us if a formal complaint were received, it would be investigated in accordance with the complaints policy, with lessons learned and any resulting actions incorporated into the service’s quality improvement programme and monitored through to completion.

The service also provided multiple opportunities for people to share their views and experiences, including verbal feedback, email correspondence, Friends and Family Test responses, google reviews and online platforms. Feedback was routinely reviewed by the management team as part of quality and governance arrangements and used to support service improvement and maintain a person-centred approach to care.

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 took steps to ensure people could access care, treatment and support in a way that met their individual needs. Prior to accepting holiday dialysis referrals, patient information was reviewed to identify any physical, sensory, communication or clinical needs so that reasonable adjustments could be planned in advance. The unit provided level access, accessible toilet facilities, and support for patients with reduced mobility. A dedicated isolation room was available to enable patients requiring source isolation to receive treatment safely.

The service also sought to reduce communication barriers by providing written information, arranging professional interpretation and translation services where required, and making reasonable adjustments for patients with visual impairments, learning disabilities, or other additional needs. Family members and carers could be involved in care where required and with the patient’s consent. The availability of both dialysis chairs and a treatment bed enabled patients with different mobility or clinical needs to access treatment comfortably and safely. Individual requirements were reviewed on arrival and throughout treatment to support equitable access to personalised care.

The service had developed a learning disability and autism (LDA) patient assessment and adjustment tool to support patients with learning disabilities and autistic people accessing dialysis treatment. The tool was designed to gather information from patients, carers and advocates to identify any reasonable adjustments required to meet individual communication, sensory, behavioural or support needs. This helped to reduce barriers to care and ensure people could access treatment in a way that was equitable, inclusive and responsive to their individual circumstances.

There was a specific nursing care plan for diabetic patients accessing holiday dialysis, which ensured people with additional health needs received safe treatment while away from home. The care plan outlined individualised support for blood glucose monitoring, medication management, dietary requirements and communication between the holiday dialysis unit and the patient's usual care providers.

Patients were provided with key contact information for both home and holiday healthcare teams and were supported to access advice and assistance when required. These arrangements helped reduce barriers to accessing dialysis treatment and promoted equitable access for people with complex health needs.

The service had an access policy which outlined the requirements and standards for managing patient access to treatment at the unit. The policy provided a clear framework for the management of patients referred from hospital renal services and haemodialysis units, covering the patient pathway from referral and assessment through to the provision of holiday dialysis treatment and discharge back to their home dialysis unit. This helped ensure patients could access treatment in a timely, coordinated and equitable way, while maintaining continuity of care throughout their treatment journey.

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.

The service recognised that some patients may be at greater risk of experiencing inequalities in access, experience or outcomes due to factors such as disability, communication needs, mobility, age, cultural background, or complex clinical requirements. Information gathered during the referral and pre-admission process was used to identify individual needs and ensure adjustments could be made before treatment commenced.

Examples of how the service tailored care included offering flexible appointment times to accommodate travel arrangements, providing clear pre-arrival information, allowing additional time for patients with reduced mobility, adapting communication methods to meet individual needs, and involving carers where required. The service also worked closely with home renal units and specialist pharmacy teams to facilitate access to non-routine medications for patients with complex clinical needs, supporting equitable access to holiday dialysis treatment. This demonstrated an individualised approach to care and a commitment to reducing barriers that could affect patient experience and outcomes.

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.

The service had a resuscitation policy that was aligned with the resuscitation council UK guidelines and quality standards for cardiopulmonary resuscitation practice and training. The policy set out the arrangements for responding to medical emergencies and aimed to ensure prompt, safe, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and defibrillation could be provided within the unit.

Staff had received basic life support (BLS) training to ensure they were competent to recognise and respond to a deteriorating patient or cardiac arrest. These arrangements supported the service to respond effectively to emergencies and formed part of its planning for future care needs and unexpected clinical events.