We found that people who used the Kendal Lymphoma Centre were satisfied with the service provided to them. We were told how "kind" and "professional" the staff were and "I cannot speak highly enough of the support and treatment".

We found that people had been given information about their treatments so that they were able to make informed decisions about it. People using the centre had given their informed consent to treatments and had been closely involved in the development of their care and treatment plans. We saw that people who used the service had their needs properly assessed, monitored and evaluated for effectiveness.

We found that people were supported and encouraged to manage their own condition to help maintain their independence. We were told "I had an assessment and was told about the equipment and massage. They gave me instructions and advice, which I followed with very good effect. They taught me to use things the way that suited me. I feel so much better now".

When we visited, we found that the premises were clean and fit for purpose. Appropriate facilities were in place for staff and people who used the service. The equipment in use was being maintained and checked as required.

The provider kept clear and up to date records and undertook satisfaction surveys for feedback from people to monitor the quality of the service provision. There was a complaints procedure for people but no one we spoke with had felt the need to use it.

We learned that people who used the service had their needs properly assessed and treatment planned appropriately, with people being involved in the process from start to finish. We judged that good levels of care were being provided.

People were given information about their care and treatment. They were supported and encouraged to manage their condition to maintain independence where possible. However we found that the consent forms were not dated and signed by both the provider and the person who used the service.

Staff were well supported and induction, regular supervision and regular appraisals were in place. Staff had the opportunity to gain further qualifications and to keep their training up to date. This enabled them to provide a good level of care, in line with current guidance.

When we visited, we found that the premises were clean and tidy and adequate facilities were in place for staff and people who used the service.

The provider regularly undertook satisfaction surveys and sought feedback from people who used the service to monitor the quality of the care being provided, however, we found the provider to be using policies and procedures from other organisations. These were not always relevant or appropriate to this service.