Turning Point - Stanfield House

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

This means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

Staff developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for clients based on national guidance and best practice. The staff had access to the full range of specialists required to meet the needs of clients. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit clients.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

We have not awarded this service a score for Effective.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Effective.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The service conducted a comprehensive pre-admission assessment for any new clients, prior to agreeing to their care. This allowed management to assess whether their services could meet the client’s needs, while also considering the risks to other people using the service. Consideration was also given to the staffing arrangements and shift patterns. Where appropriate, the service also engaged with other health and social care system partners, such as GPs, to obtain further information including annual health checks.

Assessments considered client's individual needs, relationships, protected characteristics and the shared living environment. This included consideration of client's gender identity, sexual orientation and any specific support needs, including where people identified as LGBT+. Assessments also considered a client's mental capacity. Where a person lacked capacity, staff involved carers, relatives, advocates and relevant professionals in best-interest decision making.

We reviewed 10 care records. We found the documents to be comprehensive, with details including identified risks, medication, mental and physical health needs, positive behavior plans, care pathway, preferences, and consent. Where risks were identified, mitigations put in place were appropriate and least restrictive.

Staff involved clients in planning their care, and this was reflected in the language used throughout the care plans.

Staff reviewed care plans regularly and as necessary, identifying any changes to a client’s needs, risks, or preferences, through regular client reviews and reviews of incident records.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff developed care plans in partnership with clients, their carers, and other healthcare professionals, where appropriate. Clients told us they felt involved in their care, and that their needs, preferences, and ambitions were recognised and supported.

The service supported client’s rehabilitation through a range of evidence-based approaches and person-centred care pathways. Staff led a timetable of activities with individuals and groups , focusing on therapeutic rehabilitation, mindfulness, and life skills. During our inspection, we spoke to 3 people who used, or had used, the service, all of whom spoke positively about their experience of care.

Staff supported clients to access local services for physical health monitoring, including GPs, screening, and mental health services, although staff did not conduct any physical health monitoring within the service. A client told us that the service had assisted them to pursue a neurodiversity assessment, providing emotional support and practical signposting to guidance and resources.

The service signposted clients to additional support, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and local church and community groups. Staff could seek advice from a lead pharmacist when required, and the service had good working relationships with probation and social services.

Managers supported staff to keep up to date with best practice and evidence-based care. They communicated changes in practice through emails, staff meetings and supervision sessions. New staff completed a thorough induction, and managers reviewed competency during monthly one-to-one meetings. Records from April 2025 to April 2026 showed that 100% of staff received supervision. Managers arranged additional training, either face to face or online, when they identified learning needs.

Team meetings took place every 4 to 6 weeks, scheduled to enable staff to attend in person. Attendance included staff from all roles, including administrators, ensuring all employees were supported to understand their contribution as part of the team.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

The service ensured handovers were completed at the start of each shift. During our inspection we saw clear evidence of detailed handovers that allowed staff to support clients in a current, informed way.

The service had strong working relationships with teams outside the organisation, such as local authorities, charities, and support groups. They worked closely with a GP to arrange physical health monitoring for clients, and supported clients to access services that complimented their treatment, including Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff supported clients to live healthier lives through provision of information and advice. They encouraged smoking cessation and gave guidance to clients on healthy eating during activities and meal planning. Information on substance misuse was provided regularly through client treatment pathways.

Clients were supported to access physical and mental health services, and staff helped Clients to make appointments, such as attendance at screening or neurodiversity assessment, if required. Staff directed clients to other services when appropriate, supporting them to access the services if required. At the time of our inspection, staff had recently supported a client to access a dentist for emergency treatment. Staff had helped other clients to attend employment support.

The service offered a range of activities that promoted healthier lifestyles, planned in partnership with clients. This included gardening and vegetable growing, walking groups, volunteering at public services, and attending a local gym. Clients could choose to engage in activities individually, or in groups. During our inspection we observed staff leading discussions around the importance of good sleep hygiene, and clients enjoying a group mindfulness breathing exercise. We also saw clients participating in a walking group in the local area.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff members held regular meetings with clients, individually and in groups, to discuss their care, treatment, and progress. During the meetings, they discussed the clients’ expectations and considered whether any changes to care were needed. Staff updated care plans regularly and monitored client progress in line with recognised national standards.

Outcome measures and clinical screening tools were identified at pre-assessment and continuously monitored throughout the client’s stay, to measure their progress. These included the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ), National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS), and the Treatment Outcomes Profile (TOP).

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Where practical, staff took steps to enable clients to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. They provided clear information to clients in different formats, supporting them to make informed choices. Following a detailed, collaborative pre-admission assessment, staff held frequent discussions to ensure that care plans met the client’s needs and desires. A former client told us that they expressed preference for a treatment pathway, which was agreed to by staff.

All staff had completed Mental Capacity Act 2005 awareness training and could correctly explain how this applied when providing care to people. People’s capacity was initially considered at pre-assessment and was reviewed frequently. Decisions were recorded in the client’s care plan, and staff had supported clients to access advocacy services where required.

Staff considered each client’s capacity to make decisions during pre-admission assessments and again when they reviewed client care plans. We saw evidence of such assessments in care plans. During our inspection, no clients were identified as lacking capacity. Staff were able to clearly and accurately explain the steps they would take if a client was unable to make informed decisions about their care.