Yeovil Renal 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

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated good.

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

Staff treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion. People told us staff were friendly and approachable, and we saw several caring interactions.

Staff made every effort to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices. The beds did not have privacy curtains, but portable screens were available to ensure people’s privacy and dignity were respected.

The service supported staff with their wellbeing. Leaders ensured staff had regular breaks, and the staff area was comfortable and fit for purpose.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us staff were helpful, friendly and approachable. People said they got a lovely welcome on arrival, and the environment was relaxed. Everyone knew each other by first name.

Individual beds were not screened off by curtains. Instead, mobile privacy screens were available if needed. However, no-one complained that this resulted in a lack of privacy on the unit.

We observed several caring interactions between staff and patients. Staff explained procedures and took time to answer questions.

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.

Staff made adjustments for patients when necessary and accommodated specific requests for appointment times. One patient told us staff made it possible to routinely pause their dialysis prescription half-way through so they can visit the toilet. All staff had completed equality, diversity and human rights training. Information leaflets were available in a number of languages.

However, some patients we spoke to were not aware of visiting arrangements and had never been asked if they would like family to visit them whilst on dialysis.

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 considered peoples’ individual preferences and promoted independence. People’s needs and preferences were assessed as part of their initial assessment.

There were 2 patients that had chosen to receive shared care. This is where the patient actively participates in their own haemodialysis treatment, taking on certain tasks and responsibilities with support from healthcare professionals. The patient records contained shared care training checklists to enable staff and patients to monitor progress against shared care competencies. There were no patients receiving home dialysis, but staff told us they had a close relationship with the Dorchester home dialysis team.

We scored the service as 2. The evidence showed some shortfalls. The service did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Patient appointment times were not staggered, which meant that some patients had to wait for up to an hour to be connected. Staff told us staggering appointment times was difficult due to the unreliability of patient transport. This was going to be raised at the next contract review meeting.

Some patients told us it was always cold on the unit. Staff provided blankets and adjusted the air conditioning where possible, but there was no consideration to move the colder patients further from the air conditioning unit. We raised this during our inspection and leaders acknowledged this was something they would look to address.

We saw the emergency management policy, which covered resuscitation procedure, anaphylaxis and do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR). If a patient had a DNACPR, this was clearly documented in their notes.

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.

The clinic manager was proud of the open culture in the unit and checked in on staff throughout the day. Breaks were organised at suitable times. The staff room was spacious, clean and comfortable. Staff said the team was supportive and they looked out for each other.

Staff had the opportunity to visit the renal ward at the local NHS trust to gain a deeper understanding of care and to strengthen relationships with the trust. The unit’s parent provider (Fresenius) had several staff initiatives, including monthly staff recognition awards.

There was an annual staff survey, which provided an opportunity for staff to comment on the workplace. Among the highest scoring items, 83% of staff said they would recommend the company’s services to people who need them, and 75% said the amount of stress in their job was manageable. Among the lowest scoring items, only 17% of staff said they rarely think about looking for a new job with another company, and only 25% said the results of last year’s survey had been communicated to the team. We saw the clinic manager had discussed the results of the 2025 survey with the team and intended to take actions for improvement.