Turning Point Drug and Alcohol Wellbeing Service - City of Westminster and RBKC

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

This is our first inspection for this service. We rated this key question as good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The service structure enabled people to access support and contact staff in ways that worked best for them, whether in person, by telephone or online. This included having a duty staff rota and protected daily slots in clinicians’ diaries for walk-ins. People could access treatment immediately.

Staff were flexible in arranging home or community visits to clients depending on their changing needs, for example mobility or housing. Clients told us staff were equally accommodating if they needed to change their appointment. Clients said the service hours worked well for them, for example for one person this was around their caring responsibilities, and another appreciated that the groups were not too early in the morning.

The service supported people to achieve abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and equally those who preferred to reduce their use or continue more safely. Staff we spoke with shared examples of how they based care and treatment around individual needs and preferences. Staff told us how they used a person-centred approach, asking clients what they would find helpful and agreeing achievable and holistic goals with them.

We reviewed 8 care and treatment records. Care plans were personalised, holistic and linked to individual goals and risks. For example, the care plan for one client focused on managing the risks of alcohol use, and for another on achieving abstinence from cannabis use. There was clear evidence of client voice in the care plans we viewed.

Clients and carers said they were involved in reviewing their care and treatment. All felt that staff understood and supported their individual needs. Clients told us that they could ask for changes to their treatment plan and speak with prescribers when needed.

Staff had an exceptional understanding of the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff enabled clients to access education and work opportunities. For example, the service facilitated Individual Placement Support (IPS), a scheme that matched individuals’ skills with employers. Clients had the opportunity to train as volunteer peer mentors and progress to paid employment. The service supported clients with improving skills such as IT, social media, literacy and maths and provided access to formal qualifications. Staff enabled people to involve their families and carers and had a dedicated ‘Family and Friends’ provision.

Staff had developed a comprehensive range of meaningful activities for clients to enable them to achieve better outcomes. The activity programme was available 7 days a week at each of the 3 hubs, in person and online. It included social events, peer support, art, theatre and writing workshops, physical exercise, training, volunteering, work, with involvement of carers and local communities. The service had developed its own award-winning outdoor physical exercise programme, ‘Get Connected’. A clothes bank was available to female clients at Wardour Street. Clients could access and volunteer at the food bank organised by the service. Clients’ and carers’ feedback about the activities on offer was very positive.

Staff worked with the local places of worship, for example building a referral pathway with a local mosque. This included offering mindfulness and meditation workshops to local Muslim women.

The Turning Point team recently coordinated a project aimed at reducing barriers and improving continuity of care for prison leavers. They involved people with lived experience and put forward recommendations to the local government based on the findings.

Staff completed the provider’s specialist induction, training and supervision programme tailored for the needs of their client group. Additionally, the Turning Point team had developed training for other professionals in the 2 boroughs to improve their understanding of substance misuse. This training was delivered free of charge and its content was informed by the local needs.

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff made appropriate notifications to external bodies and commissioners. The service regularly submitted its treatment data to the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS). With consent in place, staff regularly updated carers and other professionals involved in clients’ care and treatment about their progress.

Information governance systems ensured confidentiality of patient records. The provider’s electronic record system provided staff and managers with accurate oversight of information relevant to their roles. Staff completed training in this area, with 96% up-to-date with Handling Information and GDPR and 98% with Information Security training.

Information in languages spoken by the local communities was available on the premises and staff had easy access to an interpreter service. Staff knew about communication needs of people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, for example autistic people. Staff were aware of differences in cultural perceptions of mental health and substance misuse in some communities, and tailored conversations with clients on an individual basis. Staff had also identified that some clients had literacy needs and planned additional support for them around understanding and completing paperwork.

The service had a comprehensive admission pack which included a leaflet with information on support available and clear explanation of consent and information sharing. Staff ensured that people could obtain information on treatments, local services, helplines, their rights, advocacy and how to complain. However, we did not see a feedback or complaint procedure at the Harrow Road hub at the time of our inspection. We raised this with the leaders, who took immediate action to make the procedure clearly visible.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Staff followed the provider's complaints policy and knew how to handle complaints. Overall, the number of complaints the service received was small. During the 6 months prior to our inspection, the service received 2 formal complaints and 1 concern. All 3 were from clients. Both complaints were partially upheld, and the concern was resolved informally. The minutes of clinical governance meetings showed that leaders monitored the numbers of complaints and compliments received, themes, outcomes and lessons learnt.

We reviewed a sample of 3 complaints reported on the provider's electronic system. These were recorded appropriately, with actions documented, and investigated by managers. One complaint was still in progress. In another, the managers found that the correct complaint process may not have been followed and sent a letter of acknowledgment to the complainant. The learning was then shared with the team.

Staff we spoke with said that the service generally received more compliments than complaints. This was supported by the data we reviewed. For example, in May 2025, the service received 17 compliments and no complaints.

Most clients and carers told us they knew how to complain or raise concerns, although had not needed to do so. Carers could give feedback on their service experience via a survey or by email, and said that staff asked them what they thought after the sessions. However, 3 clients said they did not know how to complain, and 4 that they had not been asked for feedback. One client felt that feedback forms should be more easily available at the hub. At the same time, the service carried out an annual client survey about their experience and invited their suggestions. The results of the most recent survey for 2024-25 showed that most respondents were very positive about their care. The leaders had planned several actions in response to the survey feedback. For example, they were developing new activities and additional support for some clients around completing paperwork.

Clients and carers had the opportunity to join the provider's Service User Council. The minutes of the monthly Council meetings showed that client representatives were able to raise issues that concerned them. For example, one representative raised a query around the consistency in prescribing for relapse prevention. This led to the clinical team identifying some gaps in practice and developing an audit to address those.

Feedback boxes and procedures were available in the waiting areas at the Wardour Street and Acorn Hall hubs. However, no feedback or complaint procedure was on display at the Harrow Road hub. We raised this with the leaders, who took immediate action to make the feedback box and procedure clearly visible.

Staff made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Although there were some accessibility issues at 2 of the hubs, staff took appropriate actions to mitigate these.

Clients and carers we spoke with said they found the service locations and opening hours convenient and had different ways of contacting staff. Some people told us that online meetings worked better for them, while others preferred to attend groups in person. One client said the service hours fitted well around their caring responsibilities, and another appreciated that the groups were not too early in the morning.

Staff monitored and reported client discharge data. Staff ensured clients had access to appropriate support prior to and after discharge, such as recovery skills and relapse prevention courses and mutual aid groups. Clients and carers said that staff discussed discharge plans clearly and they knew what to expect. For example, one client told us that their keyworker was organising a detoxification programme for them.

The Acorn Hall hub had step-free access and a ramp. However, the Harrow Road and Wardour Street hubs were not accessible for people with mobility issues. Although Harrow Road had a lift, at the time of our inspection it had been out of order for some weeks. This meant the building was accessible by stairs only, with the client and carer space located on the second floor. Wardour Street hub was accessible by a steep narrow staircase and the clinic rooms were on the third floor. There was no waiting room or clinical space on the ground floor at either hub. Staff mitigated this by arranging home visits to clients with mobility issues identified at initial assessment. Staff could also meet clients at Acorn Hall and other accessible venues, and had access to a taxi service to arrange free transportation to alternative sites. Clients and carers we spoke with described the hubs as welcoming and easy to get to. However, we were concerned that clear information about accessibility was not widely available. Following our feedback, leaders took prompt action to include comprehensive information about accessibility on the service website and at the entrance to each hub.

Staff completed personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) for any clients with an accessibility need identified during assessment. Managers audited the completion of PEEPs regularly.

The service had adequate medical cover and procedures for medical emergencies at each hub. Staff were trained in first aid and basic life support in line with their role and 99% of staff had completed the mandatory First Aid Awareness training.

Staff and leaders were innovative in how they listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. Staff and leaders actively used this information to provide individually tailored care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had undertaken equality impact assessments of its policies and procedures to ensure they did not place vulnerable people or people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 at a disadvantage.

Staff told us about using anti-discriminatory practices and their understanding of the protected characteristics. Staff felt the service was open and inclusive for diverse groups of people. 99% of staff had completed Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and 100% Autism awareness training.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which people were empowered to contribute to shaping the services. We heard about numerous examples of co-production with clients and local communities to develop services for people’s unique needs. The service had developed tailored provision for women, LGBTQ+ communities, people experiencing homelessness, carers and EU nationals. The service involved other specialist providers to ensure that the support provided was culturally competent and trusted by the groups it was aimed at. Feedback from clients, carers and partner agencies about the support available was very positive. One client said: “It changed my life”.

Staff continuously sought to improve and develop services further, by engaging views of people with lived experience and partner agencies. For example, Turning Point team recently led a project to improve continuity of care for prison leavers, because they knew this group often experienced challenges in accessing community substance misuse services. From the most recent client survey, staff had identified that some clients had literacy needs, which could impact their experience of care and treatment. Staff were planning a further piece of work to provide additional support to these clients around understanding and completing paperwork.

Staff supported people 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.

Staff supported clients to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Care plans we reviewed were personalised, accounting for people’s personal goals and needs, with clear evidence of client voice.

Staff ensured all necessary health and social care professionals were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. We reviewed a care record of a client who was nearing the end of their life. Staff managed their care appropriately and sensitively, taking into account their personal needs, with involvement of the client, their next of kin, GP and palliative care team.