Basingstoke Dialysis 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

At our last assessment we rated this key question 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.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service ensured people’s needs were assessed and reviewed. We review 10 sets of care records, all records demonstrated staff completed admission assessments including medical history, allergies, communication needs and malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) assessments. We saw staff undertaking National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) observations before and during dialysis, demonstrating ongoing clinical assessment. Care plans reflected assessed needs and were personalised. People said staff understood their needs and provided consistent care, which aligned with records and observations.

The service had systems to review needs over time. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting records from April, May and June 2026 showed detailed review of each person’s clinical status, including dialysis adequacy, blood results, medication changes and required actions such as follow-up with other services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff assessed and met people’s nutrition and hydration needs. Care records showed completion of malnutrition universal screening tool (MUST) assessments, and multidisciplinary team (MDT) records demonstrated dietetic input where required, including for phosphate control and nutritional management. People said they were offered food and drink during treatment, and records showed monitoring of albumin levels, with over 93 percent of people meeting nutritional targets, indicating overall nutritional stability.

The service participated in clinical audit and quality improvement processes. The service used the Advanced Information System (AIS) and renal clinical commissioning (RCC) datasets to benchmark performance against national and internal targets. Audit data included aseptic non-touch technique (ANTT) and hand hygiene, alongside environmental and documentation audits. MDT processes were used to review outcomes and agree actions, and key performance indicator reporting included commentary and action planning where standards were not met, demonstrating a structured approach to improvement.

There was access to a multidisciplinary team (MDT). MDT meeting records confirmed regular involvement of consultants, nurses and dietitians, with coordination with general practitioners and specialist hospital teams. Discussions covered anaemia management, phosphate control, vascular access and complex clinical needs, demonstrating access to appropriate specialist expertise.

Staff were experienced, qualified and competent to meet the needs of the patient group. Staff completed structured induction, including competency-based training and supervised practice before working independently. Staff said they felt confident in delivering dialysis care, and inspectors observed staff following recognised clinical procedures safely.

Managers provided systems for induction, supervision and appraisal. All staff had received an annual appraisal, and staff described regular check-ins throughout the year to review performance, reflect on practice and identify development needs. Staff also said they attended regular team meetings, which supported communication, shared learning and discussion of care delivery.

The service ensured staff received specialist training relevant to their roles, including dialysis procedures, infection prevention and monitoring processes such as National Early Warning Score (NEWS2). Dialysis specific competencies were signed off by a practice educator who was supernumerary to the workforce.

However, some staff reported limited access to extended development opportunities, particularly for healthcare support roles, indicating development pathways were not consistently advanced across all staff groups.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service ensured effective working across teams and services, supported by multidisciplinary systems, although external transport services reduced consistency in care delivery.

We saw effective communication within the team, including prompt response to clinical changes during treatment. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) records from June 2026 demonstrated structured and comprehensive review of all patients, including dialysis adequacy, medication compliance, fluid management and escalation of concerns. Actions included referrals to specialist services and coordination with general practitioners.

The provider used shared clinical data systems to support communication across teams, including Advanced Information System (AIS) data and renal clinical commissioning (RCC) reporting, which enabled consistent review of patient outcomes.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The provider supported people to live healthier lives by providing accessible information and advice to support health and wellbeing, although a structured and consistently embedded approach to wider health promotion was not always evident.

Staff made a range of information available to support people’s understanding of their health and wellbeing. Inspectors observed extensive health promotion materials displayed throughout the service, including information on nutrition such as “kidney kitchen” resources, advice on keeping well after dialysis, and information relating to holiday planning and maintaining treatment while travelling. Information was also available for specific groups, including a young adult kidney support group, which supported access to peer support and age-appropriate advice.

Waiting areas included posters, leaflets and additional resources such as a holiday information folder and a book exchange, which supported people’s wellbeing and engagement during treatment. Infection prevention and control and safeguarding information was also clearly displayed throughout the service, supporting awareness of safety and wellbeing. Inspectors found information materials were current and relevant. Although some documents were dated, there was no evidence guidance had changed, and materials remained appropriate to support people’s health needs.

Staff also provided advice linked to people’s condition. Records and multidisciplinary team discussions showed staff gave guidance on diet, fluid management and treatment adherence, supporting people to manage their condition and maintain their health.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service ensured people’s care and treatment were routinely monitored through the effective use of clinical tools and technology, which supported the identification of risk and timely response to changes in people’s condition.

Staff used recognised tools to detect and respond to clinical deterioration. Inspectors observed staff completing National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) observations before and during dialysis treatment. Staff also used dialysis machines to continuously monitor physiological observations, including blood pressure and fluid removal, with automated alerts where readings moved outside expected parameters. Staff responded promptly to these alerts, increasing observation frequency or intervening where required. This supported early identification and management of clinical risk.

The provider used technology to support safe and effective care. Dialysis machines were programmed with individual treatment parameters for each person, including target fluid removal and baseline observations. This ensured treatment was tailored and consistently monitored throughout each session. Staff demonstrated understanding of these systems and used them to guide real-time clinical decision making.

The Advanced Information System (AIS) supported access to clinical information and monitoring of treatment delivery. Staff used this system to review key information such as blood results and treatment parameters, enabling timely clinical decisions and continuity of care. AIS data for early 2026 showed continued monitoring of outcomes, with 88.3 percent of people achieving dialysis adequacy above target in January and similar performance sustained in subsequent months.

Technology also supported communication of clinical information across the service, ensuring staff had access to up-to-date information about people’s care and treatment. This reduced the risk of delays in recognising or responding to deterioration.

The service used established clinical monitoring tools and technology effectively to support patient safety. These systems enabled staff to identify deterioration promptly, monitor treatment delivery in real time and respond appropriately to changes in people’s condition.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service supported people to make informed decisions about their care and treatment. Staff respected people’s rights through a consistent person-centred approach, with only minor inconsistencies in documentation.

Records showed consent to treatment was routinely obtained and documented. This was supported by staff feedback and observation of practice, where staff confirmed they sought consent prior to treatment and maintained ongoing dialogue with people throughout their care.

The service had systems to support consent processes, including documentation within care records and the use of personalised care planning to guide decision making. There was also evidence staff took account of people’s communication needs, culture and preferences when supporting decisions.

There was one instance, out of ten records reviewed, where consent documentation was not dated. While this demonstrated recording was not always fully complete, the wider evidence showed consent processes were consistently followed in practice.