Sidcup Kidney Treatment Centre

Updated 12 January 2022

Sidcup kidney treatment centre opened in 2017 at Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup, replacing the smaller unit on the site. It is a facility, which can accommodate up to 60 adult patients daily. At capacity it can facilitate 120 patients. The clinic provides chronic haemodialysis and care for established chronic renal failure patients who have already been stabilised on the therapy at their main parent unit.

The location carries out the regulated activity of: Treatment of disease, disorder or injury, which was registered on 26 June 2017. The location has a registered manager.

We have not inspected this location before.

Updated 12 January 2022

We inspected this service using our comprehensive inspection methodology. We carried out an unannounced visit to Sidcup Kidney Treatment Centre on 9 November 2021.

To get to the heart of patients’ experiences of care and treatment, we ask the same five questions of all services: are they safe, effective, caring, responsive to people's needs, and well-led? Where we have a legal duty to do so we rate services’ performance against each key question as outstanding, good, requires improvement or inadequate. Throughout the inspection, we took account of what people told us and how the provider understood and complied with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• We saw that not all patients had their risks reviewed monthly in line with local policy
• It was not clear how patients had developed or been assigned competencies when self-managing their care or parts of their care as part of the “shared care” programme. We were not assured there was an effective governance and review process to support this practice.
• Records relating to end of day handover were not all accounted for.

Updated 12 January 2022

We rated it as good because:

• The service had enough staff to care for patients and keep them safe. Staff had training in key skills, understood how to protect patients from abuse, and managed safety well. The service controlled infection risk well. Staff assessed risks to patients and kept good care records. They managed medicines well. The service managed safety incidents well and learned lessons from them. Staff collected safety information and used it to improve the service.
• Staff provided good care and treatment. Managers monitored the effectiveness of the service and made sure staff were competent. Staff worked well together for the benefit of patients, advised them on how to lead healthier lives, supported them to make decisions about their care, and had access to good information.
• Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness, respected their privacy and dignity, took account of their individual needs, and helped them understand their conditions. They provided emotional support to patients, families and carers.
• The service planned care to meet the needs of local people, took account of patients’ individual needs, and made it easy for people to give feedback. People could access the service when they needed it.
• Leaders ran services well using reliable information systems and supported staff to develop their skills. Staff understood the service’s vision and values, and how to apply them in their work. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. They were focused on the needs of patients receiving care. Staff were clear about their roles and accountabilities. The service engaged well with patients and the community to plan and manage services and all staff were committed to improving services continually.

However:

• We saw that not all patients had their risks reviewed monthly in line with local policy
• It was not clear how patients had developed or been assigned competencies when self-managing their care or parts of their care as part of the “shared care” programme. We were not assured there was an effective governance and review process to support this practice.
• Records relating to end of day handover were not all accounted for.