The Care Quality Commission
  • Hospital
  • Independent hospital

Basingstoke Dialysis Unit

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Unit 7, Ringway Centre, Edison Road, Basingstoke, RG21 6YH (01256) 338580

Provided and run by:
B. Braun Avitum UK Limited

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

All Inspections

During an assessment of Dialysis services

Date of assessment: 10 June 2026.

We rated the service as Good. However, we found breaches of regulations in relation to environmental safety, medicines management, patient records and governance.

Staff provided compassionate and personalised care. People told us they felt supported and staff understood their individual needs. Multidisciplinary working was effective, and some clinical outcomes, including dialysis adequacy and infection rates, were positive. Systems to support person-centred care, independence, and shared care were and used effectively.

However, staff did not always assess and mitigate risks to people’s health and safety. Environmental risks, unsafe medicines storage, and gaps in infection prevention controls were identified during inspection. Systems to monitor and embed learning from incidents and audits were not fully effective, and leaders did not always ensure improvements were sustained.

Governance systems were not always effective in identifying risks or ensuring compliance with policies, and repeated issues identified through audits were not always resolved.

During an assessment of the hospital overall

Date of assessment: 10 June 2026.

Basingstoke Dialysis Unit provides dialysis services. This assessment looked at dialysis services, which we rated as Good. The rating of Basingstoke Dialysis Unit is Good.

In our assessment of dialysis services, we found, the service mostly delivered care safely, consistently, and in line with governance expectations. Staff delivered caring, personalised treatment and some clinical outcomes were positive. However, leaders did not always ensure risks were effectively mitigated or learning from incidents, audits and performance data was embedded.

At this assessment we identified breaches of regulations in relation to environmental risks, medicines storage and management, storage of patient records and governance

02 August 2022

During a routine inspection

We rated it as good because:

  • The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well.
  • Staff assessed risks to patients, acted on them and kept good care records. They mostly managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them.
  • Staff provided good care and treatment, gave patients enough 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 ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. 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. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

  • The service did not always control infection risks well to prevent cross infection in line with policies and guidance.
  • The service processesor checking emergency equipment was not always effective as expired resuscitation item was not replaced, and the resuscitation trolley was not maintained securely.
  • The service did not always manage the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) well, as substances were not securely kept which may pose risks of unauthorised access by people.
  • The service did not always maintain medicines safely.
  • The clinical staff did not receive safeguarding training relevant to their roles.