Havant Renal Unit

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

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

The service had clear admission criteria to ensure patients were suitable for dialysis treatment at the centre. These criteria were developed in partnership with the local NHS renal service, helping to ensure patients’ needs could be met safely.

Staff completed detailed assessments and care plans for every patient. We reviewed 5 patient records and found they consistently contained information about patients' physical health, clinical needs, communication requirements and social circumstances. Records included next of kin details, medicines, dialysis prescriptions, mobility needs, dietary information, elimination needs and relevant discharge information from previous hospital admissions.

Staff assessed and documented risks relating to mobility and moving and handling. Records included information about patients' height, weight and equipment requirements, as well as frailty assessments that considered their overall health and wellbeing.

Patients' needs were reviewed regularly to ensure care remained appropriate. Staff used monthly blood test results to monitor patients' condition and plan their treatment, contacting consultants promptly when prescription changes were needed. Care plans and treatment records were updated to reflect any changes in patients' needs.

The service also carried out monthly documentation audits to check the quality, accuracy and completeness of patient records. Audit results from April, May and June 2026 all achieved scores of 98% or above, providing assurance that patients were being assessed effectively, their needs were kept under review, and records were completed clearly and consistently.

Patients received care and treatment based on current evidence and recognised best practice. Staff followed policies developed by Diaverum UK Limited and, where required, local NHS trust guidance. A compliance manager regularly reviewed these policies to ensure they reflected current legislation, NICE guidance and national standards. Policy updates were shared with staff, who could also access guidance through the Diaverum intranet, helping them provide care that was consistent and up to date.

Staff used recognised assessment tools and evidence-based approaches to monitor and manage patients' health. For example, they used a sepsis assessment pathway based on NICE guidance and the UK Sepsis Trust screening tool, which had been adapted to meet the needs of dialysis patients.

Staff regularly assessed patients' nutritional needs. Monthly nutritional reviews helped identify any changes in dietary requirements and supported patients' overall health and wellbeing. Patients starting dialysis received written information about kidney disease, dialysis treatment and healthy eating. This included advice about maintaining a balanced diet, managing poor appetite and understanding how nutritional needs can change during treatment. Patients could also access support from specialist renal dietitians when needed.

Havant Renal Unit worked closely with the local NHS renal service to ensure patients received coordinated and consistent care. All patients remained under the care of a named renal consultant at the NHS trust, and staff described positive working relationships with trust colleagues.

Staff regularly met with the NHS renal consultant through multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings to review patients' clinical needs and agree treatment plans. Records showed these meetings involved the renal consultant, unit manager and renal secretary, with decisions clearly documented and shared with patients and the wider clinical team. For example, the team reviewed a patient with ongoing high blood pressure, discussed fluid management, agreed changes to medication, informed the patient's GP and arranged follow-up with the renal consultant. This helped ensure care was well coordinated and important information was shared between services.

The registered manager described effective partnership working with the trust's renal coordinator to support timely access to treatment for new patients. Staff also worked closely with NHS consultants when reviewing dialysis prescriptions and responding to changes in patients' conditions. They told us consultants were easily accessible and provided prompt advice when concerns were raised.

The service also worked with specialist professionals to meet patients' wider healthcare needs. A renal dietitian visited the unit each month to provide expert advice and support for patients with nutritional concerns. This helped ensure patients received dietary advice alongside their ongoing dialysis care.

The local NHS trust retained overall responsibility for patients' clinical care, and the strong partnership between the trust and the dialysis unit helped ensure patients received safe, effective and joined-up care throughout their treatment.

Staff supported patients to live healthier lives. The service displayed information within patient areas to promote healthy lifestyles and signpost available support. Information in waiting areas included advice on how patients could access resources to improve their health and wellbeing.

Staff provided education and guidance to patients about their renal conditions and how to optimise their health outcomes. Discussions with patients confirmed staff regularly spoke with them about how to manage and maintain their renal health effectively.

The service closely monitored patient outcomes, safety, quality and patient experience to understand how well it was performing and where improvements could be made. Staff reviewed individual patient outcomes and used clinical data to identify patients who may need additional support or changes to their treatment. They monitored areas such as the effectiveness of dialysis treatment, nutritional health and vascular access to help achieve the best possible outcomes for patients.

Leaders reviewed performance through regular governance meetings, where they monitored quality, safety and clinical information and compared results across other provider locations. They also benchmarked outcomes against national standards and other dialysis units to identify areas of good performance and opportunities for improvement.

The unit treated between 108 and 116 patients each month and provided between 1,198 and 1,378 dialysis sessions. Performance data showed positive improvements over time. The proportion of patients receiving dialysis for the prescribed treatment time increased from 78% in January 2026 to 91% in May and remained high at 89% in June. Missed dialysis sessions also reduced significantly, from 36 in January to 11 in June. Leaders monitored these measures to help ensure patients received the treatment they needed and achieved better health outcomes.

Staff also monitored patients' nutritional health. Performance reports identified low albumin levels in some patients, and staff used monthly nutritional assessments and specialist dietetic support to respond to these concerns and support patients' wellbeing.

The service maintained a strong focus on patient safety. There were no recorded grade 3 or 4 pressure ulcers, Clostridioides difficile infections, MRSA infections, acquired MSSA infections, avoidable patient harm incidents or moderate to severe safety events during the reporting period. Medicine-related incidents were low, and compliance with vascular access visibility standards remained at 100%. Regular audits of clinical practice and documentation also showed consistently high levels of compliance.

Staff used national benchmarking data from the UK Renal Registry to compare outcomes against national standards and guidance. Leaders reviewed performance regularly and investigated any areas that fell outside expected ranges. This helped provide assurance about the quality of care and supported continuous improvement.

The effectiveness of dialysis treatment was monitored through regular review of clinical indicators, including Urea Reduction Ratio (URR) results. Most patients achieved results above the expected target, indicating dialysis treatment was generally effective. Staff also monitored potassium and calcium levels, which remained stable over time. Reviewing these measures helped staff identify patients who needed additional support and informed treatment decisions.

The service actively sought feedback from patients to understand their experiences and improve care. Patients completed experience surveys, quality-of-life questionnaires and Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs). Feedback was positive overall, particularly in relation to appointment scheduling, the information provided and interactions with staff. Patients consistently described staff as caring and supportive and valued the comfortable environment. The service used feedback to identify areas where patient involvement and support could be further improved.

Leaders also monitored complaints and concerns. Complaint levels were low, although patient transport remained the most common issue raised. Staff reviewed complaints alongside survey feedback to identify themes and implement improvements where needed.

Staff took steps to obtain consent and support patients to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Records showed patients had consented to dialysis treatment, and discussions with patients confirmed they felt involved in decisions about their care and understood the treatment they were receiving.

Staff worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and followed the provider’s MCA and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) policy. The policy promoted the principle that people should be presumed to have capacity unless there was evidence otherwise and provided guidance on assessing capacity, obtaining consent and making decisions in a person's best interests where necessary.

At the time of assessment, staff had not identified any patients as lacking capacity to make decisions about their treatment. However, staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and were able to explain how they would assess capacity and make best interest decisions if required. Patient records we reviewed contained completed consent forms and, where required, documented mental capacity assessments.

All staff had completed mandatory MCA and DoLS training. This helped ensure they understood their responsibilities under the legislation and supported them to apply the principles of consent, capacity and best interest decision-making in practice. As a result, staff respected patients' rights, involved them in decisions about their care and promoted choice and independence wherever possible.