The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

DaVita (UK) Ltd - North Poole

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

The Fulcrum Centre, Vantage Way, Poole, BH12 4NU

Provided and run by:
DaVita (UK) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment of Dialysis services

We carried out an assessment of dialysis services at DaVita UK Ltd – North Poole on 8 June 2026.

DaVita UK provides kidney care services to more than 250,000 patients across more than 3,000 clinics in 14 countries. There are currently 25 clinics in England and Wales.

The DaVita clinic in Poole has 27 dialysis stations including 3 side rooms. The clinic offers services on 6 days each week including morning, afternoon and evening sessions. . Patients are referred to the clinic by a local NHS hospital trust who commission the service. DaVita is registered with CQC to provide treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

We assessed all quality statements across safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led key questions. We spoke with 8 patients, 7 staff and the registered manager for the service. We looked at 5 patient records.

We rated the service as requires improvement. We found a breach of regulation in relation to the safe management of medicines. This was a repeated breach from the last assessment of the service on 24 March 2021. Medicines were administered in a way that was unsafe and did not follow the organisation’s policy and or professional guidance. This increased the risk of patients receiving the wrong medicines. Following the assessment, we served a Warning Notice to the provider in relation to the safe management of medicines. The service has been told it must improve and be compliant with the regulations by 23 July 2026.

The service was proactive in learning from incidents. When things went wrong, the leadership team investigated concerns and learning was shared with staff. The service worked in partnership with other organisations to deliver, and improve, care. There were processes to maintain a safe environment and the provider took action to make improvements in response to shortfalls. Patients felt confident about staff’s ability to provide their care and treatment.

Although patient assessment records had some gaps, the service was committed to working with others to deliver effective care. Patient outcomes were monitored and patients were provided with advice and information about their health and wellbeing.

Staff were kind and caring and responded quickly to patients’ needs. Patients had choice and control over their treatment. The service listened to patients’ feedback and took action in response to their concerns. They communicated with patients about changes in the service and offered opportunities for patients to share ideas. Opportunities for further development included improving equity of experience and outcomes for patients with more complex needs by building staff’s confidence in providing this support.

Leadership and governance processes had failed to address concerns around medicines management identified at a previous CQC inspection 5 years ago. Although governance arrangements had not identified or managed risks in medicines administration, there were processes to promote the smooth running of the clinic. Workplace culture was an important part of the organisation’s strategy. Staff could raise concerns and felt confident they would be listened to. There were arrangements to promote an inclusive workplace, work in partnership with other organisations and participate in professional networks. This ensured the service had opportunities to learn from others and develop services which met patients’ needs, both now and in the future.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

Date of assessment: 8 June 2026. DaVita (UK) Ltd - North Poole provides dialysis services. This service was inspected due to the age of the previous ratings.

DaVita UK provides kidney care services to more than 250,000 patients across more than 3,000 clinics in 14 countries. There are currently 25 clinics in England and Wales.

The DaVita clinic in North Poole has 27 dialysis stations including 3 side rooms. The clinic offers services on 6 days each week including morning, afternoon and evening sessions. Patients are referred to the clinic by a local NHS hospital trust who commission the service. The clinic is registered with CQC to provide treatment of disease, disorder or injury.

24 March 2021

During a routine inspection

This was our first inspection of this service. We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff were supported to complete training in key skills and understood how to protect patients from abuse. Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on the assessed risks and kept good care records. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients opportunity to eat and drink, and gave them pain relief when they needed it. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information. Key services were available to suit patients’ needs.
  • 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, families and carers.
  • The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it and did not have to wait too long for treatment.
  • Leaders had skills and abilities to run the service. 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. All staff were committed to improving services.

However:

  • The service did not always operate an effective system to ensure they met duty of candour requirements after a notifiable incident.
  • The control of systems and processes for governance was limited by the contractual arrangements with the commissioning NHS trust.
  • Leaders and teams used systems to manage performance but actions for improvement were not clearly identified.
  • Staff did not always follow systems and processes to safely prescribe, administer, and record medicines. Staff were observed preparing, checking and administering the medicine at the same time, increasing the risk of error. Storage for medicines was not well organised and we found expired medicines.
  • Staff compliance with mandatory training had been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and was below target levels. However, the service had a strategy to improve training compliance.
  • The service did not always control infection risks well. There had been some potential infection control risks during COVID-19. The service had learnt from the incident and practices had been improved as a result.
  • Staff did not use a standardised tool to identify when a patient’s general condition was deteriorating. They did not record and manage patient risks from deteriorating conditions other than sepsis. Actions staff took relied upon their knowledge and experience. However, the service had a plan to introduce a standardised tool to assess general deterioration.
  • Not all staff followed the policies of the service in some clinical procedures. We saw examples of staff carrying out an aseptic non touch technique and insertion of a vascular access device which did not follow the standard operating procedure of the service.
  • There had been reduced patient feedback options for over 12 months because of the COVID-19 pandemic and there was no evidence actions had been identified based on patient feedback surveys.