Basingstoke Dialysis 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

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 were treated with kindness, compassion and respect, and staff behaviours reflected a caring and supportive culture.. Survey data showed most people rated staff as helpful, with a high proportion reporting staff were “extremely” or “somewhat” helpful, and staff supported them positively during their care.

This was reflected in overall satisfaction scores, with 91% of people reporting they were satisfied or very satisfied with their care, exceeding the dialysis centre benchmark of 80%. People also reported positive experiences of staff interactions, indicating staff treated them with repsect and provided support during treatment.

Staff behaviours and processes supported people’s dignity and confidentiality. Records showed staff followed clear procedures to protect privacy, including restricting visitor access to clinical areas during key stages of treatment and asking visitors to leave during emergencies to maintain dignity. Staff were responsible for escorting visitors and ensuring they did not access inappropriate areas, reducing the risk of breaches to confidentiality or privacy.

Survey findings and leadership review also indicated staff supported people during treatment; however, leaders identified improvements were needed in communication and in the time, staff spent with people. This suggested while staff provided emotional support and advice, this was not always delivered consistently or at the level people expected.

Leaders’ evaluation of survey feedback showed people’s comfort and aspects of their experience, such as communication and engagement, required improvement.

Overall satisfaction and positive feedback about staff helpfulness suggested support was provided, although the extent and consistency of this could not be fully assured from the available evidence.

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.

People received care generally reflected their individual needs, although variability in feedback showed this was not always consistent.

Staff ensured people could obtain information about their care and the service. Leaders described the use of patient newsletters and information within the service to support people’s understanding of their treatment and care. Managers also ensured staff and people had access to interpreter services via telephone to support communication where needed.

Survey data showed 91% overall satisfaction at the service, which was higher than the 80% benchmark for dialysis centres, indicating most people felt their needs were met. Actions had been introduced requiring staff to assess people’s comfort at each session and respond to individual needs, including environmental adjustments. This demonstrated awareness of the need to respond to people as individuals, although variation in feedback indicated this was not fully embedded.

However, more detailed scoring highlighted differences in individual experience. For example, 85% of people reported feeling comfortable between arrival and connection to treatment, meaning a notable minority did not feel fully comfortable at this stage. In addition, only 58% of people were satisfied with the temperature of the environment, representing a significant gap in experience.

Leaders had reviewed this data and introduced corrective actions, including requiring staff to assess comfort at each dialysis session and adjust environmental conditions using measures such as heating devices and fans.

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.

People were supported to have independence and control, although this was balanced with safety and dignity requirements, which limited some aspects of choice. Records showed clear controls on visitor access, including mandatory sign-in processes, identification requirements, and supervision by staff while on site.

Visitors were not permitted to access clinical areas during key stages of treatment, such as connection and disconnection, and were restricted from visiting other people receiving care. Staff were responsible for escorting visitors and ensuring they remained in appropriate areas.

These arrangements ensured people’s care took place in a controlled environment prioritised safety, infection prevention, and dignity. However, these restrictions meant people had limited flexibility in relation to visits during treatment, which may have reduced their sense of control and choice, particularly during longer dialysis sessions.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service responded to people’s immediate needs, but this was not always consistent across all aspects of care experience. Survey data showed high overall satisfaction (91%), but more specific scoring highlighted gaps in responsiveness. For example, only 58% of people were satisfied with temperature, and comfort levels before treatment were lower than overall satisfaction scores.

These findings were supported by leader evaluation, which identified comfort, communication, and time spent with people as key areas for improvement. Patients had access to food, water and pain relief during their treatment.

Leaders had implemented changes, including routine comfort assessments at each dialysis session and improvements to environmental controls.

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 service supported staff to deliver person-centred care, and staff described a positive and supportive working environment, although there were some limitations in evidence across all workforce measures.

The service recognised staff success. They operated an “employee of the month” scheme, where people using the service could nominate staff, demonstrating recognition of good performance and contribution.

Staff had access to structured appraisal and development processes. Staff said they received regular appraisals, which included review of competencies and opportunities for development. However, some staff reported limited opportunities for career progression, particularly for healthcare support roles, indicating development was not consistent across all staff groups.