DaVita (UK) Ltd - Boston Also known as Renal Services (UK) Ltd

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

We looked for evidence that people were always treated with kindness, empathy and compassion. We checked that people’s privacy and dignity was respected, that they understood that they and their experience of how they were treated and supported mattered. We also looked for evidence that every effort was made to take people’s wishes into account and respect their choices, to achieve the best possible outcomes for them.

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.

The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and mostly respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with respect. Staff were respectful and discreet when providing patients with care. Curtains were provided around each bed to enhance privacy. However, we did not see these being used.

Patients reported that staff treated them well and provided support to answer any questions they may have. They said that the staff were kind and knowledgeable. Most patients we spoke with were satisfied with the care they received. The patient survey comments are mostly positive with “the nurses are good” being the most reported comment.

The service did not always treat people as individuals and made sure people’s care and support met patients’ individual needs and preferences. However, staff did make sure that clinical treatment was provided on an individualised basis. Whilst most patients were satisfied with the care they received, some patients felt that the staff did not interact with them enough and take an interest in their personal life.

Best practice guidance highlighted the importance of staff taking time to support patients’ social and emotional wellbeing alongside their physical health. Evidence showed that addressing psychosocial needs improved both patient experience and health outcomes for people with kidney disease. National guidance on person centred care also emphasised that services met people’s emotional and social needs, not just clinical requirements, and involved patients in shaping their care experience. The service did not consistently recognise or promote social activities for patients. There were limited organised events, such as birthday celebrations, which reduced opportunities to support patient wellbeing and improve the overall experience.

The care team made adjustments for patients, for example by placing a patient with dementia at the end of the bay as it was quieter in this bay. There were tools available to help staff communicate with patients whose first language was not English. However, the staffing was multicultural and whilst the team had access to interpreters, these were often not required. Patients had made comments on the patient survey which suggested more could be done to personalise treatment and care. These included issues around encouraging independence, provision of the service times to fit with school times and language barriers, making communication difficult.

Patients and staff had access to information on local and national services in reception and waiting areas. This was all written in English and translated or easy read versions were not available on site. However, staff could provide this information verbally if translation was required. Each dialysis station had a bed which was adjustable for patient comfort. Staff did not always make sure that patients had access to use the television in their dialysis station. We saw a patient using the TV when we inspected, they were using subtitles as they believed that the service did not have headphones. Staff did not take time to chat with patients who were in the unit for up to 4 hours at a time. Patients used personal devices, read magazines or did puzzles if not using the time to rest.

Staff completed specific mandatory training on supporting patients living with dementia. There were plans in place to support the patient we saw who was living with dementia. A friend accompanied the patient to their treatment and stayed with them. There were plans in place for early disconnection should the patient become agitated. A patient diary was in place to ensure good communication between the unit and the care home where the patient lived. 

The service promoted patients’ independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. The service had introduced twilight dialysis sessions 3 times a week. As well as increasing the capacity for dialysis to meet the needs of the local population, this also gave patients who worked the choice to dialyse in the evening after work rather than having to take time off work 3 times a week. The service was flexible to move patients' sessions to facilitate appointments or personal events.

Staff supported patients’ choices by educating them about their condition and dialysis. For example, staff ensured patients who did not attend for treatment were contacted and provided with advice and support. They ensured that they understood the potential health impact if they did not attend regularly for treatment. Following discussion, the patents who had failed to attend had returned to treatment plans.

Staff supported patients to be as independent as possible with their dialysis treatment. All patients weighed themselves before and after a dialysis session and this record was automatically transferred onto the patients’ electronic record. If patients wished to explore home dialysis this included any assessment or training and was a process called shared care. Through the shared care approach staff supported patients to carry out some or all their dialysis, some with the ambition to eventually dialyse independently at home. At the time of our inspection staff were supporting 2 patients who were at varying stages of their journey towards home dialysis. The uptake of shared care at the Boston unit was low in comparison to others across the country.

Staff supported patients with choices about holidays. This included the practicalities of holidaying while receiving dialysis and sourcing centres where they could receive dialysis while on holiday. Information was available in reception on cruises where dialysis could be undertaken.

The service listened to and understood patients’ needs, views, and wishes. Staff responded to patients’ needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern, or distress. The layout of the unit meant staff always had sight of patients. Patients, whilst they had access to a call bell, did not use this, as they could easily call out to care staff in the unit as they were always around. Care plans identify any specific risks for patients.

Staff assessed patients using the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) at the beginning and during their dialysis session. This meant staff were alerted to any changes in patients’ conditions that needed immediate attention. All machines had alarms on them if pressures dropped. There were emergency call bells available in each bed space and emergency equipment was kept central to patients.

A patients forum meeting was held in May 2025 to enable patients to raise any concerns they had and to suggest improvements. There had not been one held recently due to the change in the clinic manager who had started approximately 2 months prior to our inspection. The unit had a culture ambassador who ran monthly bingo sessions for patients. This ambassador also ran raffles when patients suggested it. We did not see this activity

Staff felt respected, supported and valued by the team and the organisation. We heard how they enjoyed their jobs and because of this they had been there for a number of years. Staff who had left the unit returned due to the friendliness and support from the team working on the unit. There was a culture of kindness and respect between colleagues. All conversations we observed were positive and professional.

Staff could access support for their own physical and emotional health needs through an employee assistance programme. There was a confidential telephone line for staff to raise any issues that they felt they could not raise within the unit. Whilst staff were aware of this no one we spoke to had used it.

The service recognised staff success. Staff and patients could nominate a member of staff for an award to recognise those who displayed one of the company’s core values. There was an annual awards celebration to recognise winners in each of the seven core company values. The unit had previously won an award in the value of fun. Staff had annual appraisals which identified learning and development needs as well as setting their personal goals for the coming year. These were completed for all staff working on the unit.