Basingstoke Dialysis Unit

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff delivered care reflected people’s individual needs, preferences, and communication styles. Care records showed detailed personalised care planning, including specific guidance on nutrition, comfort, positioning, and communication. For example, records described how staff supported people who required assistance with eating and drinking, adapted meal timing to transport schedules, and provided preferred items such as oat milk. Staff also documented how people required additional time to communicate their wishes, and staff said they adapted their approach to ensure people were understood.

Inspectors observed staff interacting with people in a calm and supportive way, allowing time for communication and responding to expressed preferences during care. Staff and patient feedback confirmed strong relationships, and some people said staff understood their needs well.

The service empowered people to be involved in their treatment. Records and training documents showed staff supported people to develop skills through shared care programmes, including learning to manage aspects of their dialysis treatment such as observations, machine preparation, and self-care tasks. These programmes included structured competency assessments and progressive independence, supported by staff supervision. Staff said this approach improved people’s confidence and control over their treatment, and records confirmed competency sign-off processes.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Records showed staff assessed people on admission and developed care plans based on individual needs, including medical conditions, communication requirements, and social factors. Staff said they liaised with external partners such as care homes and hospital teams to support continuity of care, and records demonstrated coordination of treatment and medication information.

Clinical data showed consistent delivery of dialysis treatment, with 794 treatments delivered in one month and stable patient numbers, indicating continuity of service provision. Staff also monitored clinical outcomes, including dialysis adequacy, haemoglobin, and biochemical markers, which supported ongoing planning of care.

Staff used structured processes and clinical tools, such as convective volume algorithms and treatment monitoring systems, to adjust treatment and respond to changes in people’s needs. These were supported by training materials and clinical guidance used in practice.

However, availability of wider treatment options and optimisation of some modalities depended on external factors such as vascular access and clinical prescribing decisions. Clinical information showed a mix of access types and variation in achieving treatment targets, including challenges in reaching optimal convective volumes for some people.

Data showed missed dialysis sessions remained an ongoing issue. Missed sessions ranged from 24 to 60 per month in early 2026, and MDT records linked this to non-adherence and external factors such as transport delays. This indicated while internal team working and information sharing were effective, external transport systems and patient-related factors reduced the provider’s ability to ensure consistent attendance and continuity of care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats were tailored to individual needs.

Systems and policies showed staff followed structured processes to provide education and information. Education programmes included staged learning over time, covering treatment options, medication, diet, and dialysis care, with documentation required in care records. Staff said they provided information gradually to avoid overwhelming people and adapted explanations based on people’s understanding.

Policies and procedures showed the service had processes to support accessible communication, including interpreter services, confidentiality requirements, and documentation of patient consent when using interpreters. Staff were required to identify communication needs in advance and offer professional interpretation services where needed. Staff supported people to express their views and make decisions about their care. Care records showed good examples of personalised and adapted care plans, which included communication needs and specific guidance to support people to understand and participate in decisions. Inspectors observed staff adapting their communication and approach to meet individual needs, and people said they were involved in decisions about their care.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of person-centred care. Care plans reflected people’s preferences and needs, and staff were able to describe how they supported people to make decisions, including providing explanations and involving others where appropriate. This showed consent was embedded in day-to-day practice.

Records and governance data showed high levels of information governance training completion (over 90%), supporting staff awareness of confidentiality and data protection requirements.

Staff said they provided information about treatment, care processes, and ongoing support, and involved families where appropriate. Care records demonstrated carers were involved in supporting people with complex needs.

Information could be provided in alternative formats, such as easy-read materials or multiple languages, and could be translated as required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and staff described a culture where feedback was welcomed and people felt able to raise concerns. People told inspectors they could speak to staff about their care and preferences, and inspectors observed staff actively involving people in decisions during treatment. Staff said they encouraged people to share their views as part of routine care and used these interactions to adapt care delivery in real time. Opportunities for involvement extended beyond direct care, as people contributed to the service through activities such as voting for staff recognition awards, which reflected ongoing engagement and inclusion.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to respond to concerns. They told inspectors they were aware of complaint processes and would escalate issues appropriately. Staff said they discussed feedback within the team and used it to inform improvements in care. There was some evidence that feedback was shared across the service, and staff described reflecting on this to improve practice. This suggested people who raised concerns were generally listened to, and staff took steps to respond.

There were lots of opportunities for patients to give feedback. A suggestions box was available in the waiting area, and patients were involved in an improvement group, run by the service, which looked at feedback and opportunities for improvement. Patients told us they could speak to staff directly if they wanted to give any feedback, and they felt comfortable to do this if they needed to.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Clinical data showed the service delivered a high volume of treatments with stable capacity utilisation of around 68–70%, indicating demand was met. Most people received dialysis at least three times per week, with over 93% meeting this threshold.

Staff said medical support was available, and systems were to respond to clinical need. Data also showed no recorded serious incidents such as cardiac arrests, medication errors, or treatment-related adverse events in the reporting period.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to support people’s needs. Care records showed adaptations for mobility, nutrition, communication, and personal preferences, including assistance with transfers and feeding support. They also planned care around people’s wider needs, including transport timing and coordination with external providers.

However, some missed sessions and reduced treatment times were recorded, with missed sessions related to factors such as hospitalisation and transport challenges. This indicated access could be affected by external factors outside the service’s direct control, but the service acted and gave feedback to reduce the impact of this on patients wherever possible.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff told us they encouraged people to share their views and adapted care to individual needs. Care records demonstrated personalised approaches for people with complex physical and communication needs, including use of carers and adjustments to care delivery.

However, there was limited evidence the provider routinely analysed outcomes or experiences specifically for people with protected characteristics or completed equality impact assessments as part of service evaluation. Staff responded to individual needs, but the service had less evidence of systematically identifying or addressing inequalities in experience or outcomes across the population.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Policies and documentation showed clear processes for advance care planning, including Do Not Attempt Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. This required shared decision-making involving the person, their family, and the multidisciplinary team, with clear documentation and regular review.

Records showed DNACPR decisions were documented, communicated, and accessible across care settings, and staff were responsible for ensuring discussion and documentation were completed appropriately.

Staff told us they supported people to make decisions about their care and treatment, including ongoing management, and involved relevant professionals where needed. Care plans also showed planning for future care needs, including coordination with external providers and ongoing monitoring of clinical conditions.