West End Donor Centre

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

Treatment was based on the latest evidence and good practice. Staff made sure people understood their care and treatment to enable them to give informed consent.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The judgement for Assessing needs is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

Care and treatment was evidence-based and in line with good practice standards. The provider ensured that staff were up-to-date with national legislation, evidence-based good practice and required standards. Standard operating procedures were updated from knowledge sources such as The Joint UK Blood Transfusion and Tissue Transplantation Services Professional Advisory Committee (JPAC). JPAC set evidence-based standards, guidelines, and donor selection criteria to ensure the safety, quality, and efficacy of blood, tissues, and stem cells across the UK and provided advice to NHSBT. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) ensured evidence-based blood donation practice by implementing, inspecting, and enforcing the Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005.

We found examples of policies, standard operating procedures and practice being updated when good practice guidance had been updated. Staff were provided with updates in training meetings, training and through reading new procedures. All standard operating procedures were available to staff on the intranet. All copies were signed by staff as stated as read.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs are met in line with current guidance. Drinks and snacks were readily available in the waiting and recovery areas. This included drinks, biscuits and crisps. Tea and coffee was freely available from a machine. We spoke with a first time donor. They told us that all their questions were answered by members of the team. They were offered drinks and snacks. They told us that the health questionnaire covered all of their needs.

The judgement for How staff, teams and services work together is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Supporting people to live healthier lives is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

People received information about care and treatment in a way they could understand and have appropriate support and time to make decisions. Information about donating was available on the provider’s website and through printed information widely available on site. This included an explanation of the process, what to expect, time duration and health promotion advice. We observed donors being given a donor consent booklet alongside the donor consent form, which contained information on the procedure and possible complications.

There were systems and practices to ensure that people understood the care and treatment being offered or recommended. Assessment records were designed individually for both new and regular donors. Both reviewed consent at each visit. Consent was recorded digitally on each individual donor record. Staff ensured consent had been obtained within the assessment record via online prompts they had to follow before being permitted to progress the assessment.

The donor consent booklet demonstrated that donors were given full information prior to make informed consent to donate. The booklet included information about medical assessment, eligibility, risks, how donations were used. ‘What is being consented to’ was clearly laid out in an easy to understand format. We observed a clear procedural process to check donor consent. We observed donors completing consent forms in the waiting area which were then reviewed in the consultation area with a donor carer. Donors were then asked to sign the reverse of the form in front of staff. People were asked if they understood the consent form, and whether they had any questions.

We spoke with 2 regular donors who felt they had given informed consent for the procedure. They told us they had understood the information given to them by staff, who they told us were helpful in assisting with their understanding of the procedure and any possible complications.

People's capacity and ability to consent was taken into account. Staff told us if they were concerned about a patient’s ability to consent, they would raise this with a supervisor or other senior staff, who would take over the consent process with the potential donor. We were given examples of presentations that might constitute to a lack understanding of what was being consented to or if they did not seem to understand the consent form. Senior staff, to whom queries regarding consent were escalated, told us that assessing suitability to donate included checking individual capacity. If they were concerned a patient did not have capacity to consent, they would decline them for donation.