Turning Point - Stanfield House

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Clients were involved in their care planning and were supported to make informed decisions about their treatment choices. Staff supported clients with activities outside the service, such as work, education, and family relationships. The service met the needs of all clients, including those with protected characteristics. Staff helped clients with communication, advocacy and cultural and spiritual support. The service treated concerns and complaints seriously, investigated them and learned lessons from the result.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

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

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff involved clients in their care plans. Staff recorded the client’s voice throughout their care plans, with clearly recorded goals, preferences, and desires.

A client told us they felt that staff listened to them and respected their requests. A former client shared that they had a preference on their care pathway, which they discussed at the point of pre-admission. By discussing their request and rationale, the service were able to support the client on their preferred approach to rehabilitation.

Client’s independence was promoted and they were able to make choices around how they spent their days. A client shared that if they didn’t want to take part in group activities, they were offered support to do them individually. Another client told us that when they were unable to attend an activity due to a prior commitment, staff organised for them to take part when they were available.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff told us how they had supported several clients to access education and work opportunities through local services. Clients took part in voluntary work at a nearby community service while others returned to the service following treatment, to help other clients as peer support workers. Staff told us about a former client who had been supported to attend training and complete forklift certification during their care. The service also held a range of recovery skills groups, supporting clients to prepare for the future.

Clients, where they chose to, were assisted to maintain contact with friends, family members, and carers. Clients had access to their own phones, emails, and post. The service promoted visitors, with appropriate risk assessments in place. During our inspection, we saw evidence of a client being supported to be visited by their children.

The service supported clients to attend local church groups, going alongside them if appropriate, and had previously encouraged others to access other religious and spiritual places of worship.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service made appropriate notifications to external and statutory bodies, where required.

Information governance systems were in place to protect the confidentiality of client records, with policies and procedures available on the Turning Point intranet pages to support practice.

The service provided information in a range of different formats, aligned with the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard, and adapted documentation to meet the needs of clients.

A range of information was available, including details of advocacy services, feedback and complaints processes. While no clients required adapted documentation at the time of our assessment, staff told us that easy-read information could be easily and quickly sourced through Turning Point. Similarly, no clients required information to be provided in different languages during our inspection. The service had access to an interpreter service and documentation in multiple languages if required.

Where clients consented, staff ensured kept families and carers updated on the progress of their loved one’s rehabilitation, with details recorded in care plans.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service had not received any complaints in the 12 months prior to our inspection. Clients we spoke with told us they knew how to make complaints or share concerns, and information on making complaints was detailed on posters throughout the service. Staff were able to clearly explain the process for responding to concerns or complaints locally and through Turning Point.

A ‘You said, We Did’ board was displayed in the reception area, showing that staff had taken timely action in response to client feedback. Actions were also discussed in client groups.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured the needs of clients with mobility requirements were met. A client who used a mobility aid was allocated a bedroom on the ground floor. The room had additional floor space, ensuring the client was able to move around using a frame or wheelchair. The service did not have a lift and staff told us they would not accept a referral if the premises was not appropriate to meet the needs of the person.

Staff made reasonable adjustments for clients where required, including providing shower chairs for people with mobility needs. No hoists or other lifting equipment was being used at the time of our inspection.

A staff administrator was supporting autistic and neurodiverse clients in their recovery through informal groups and one to one gardening sessions. All staff members had completed Oliver McGowan training, fulfilling the mandatory training requirement on learning disability and autism. At the time of our inspection no clients had a formal diagnosis of autism, ADHD, or learning disabilities.

While no medical cover was present on site, staff could quickly arrange a doctor or ambulance to attend in the event of an emergency. The service was located within a reasonable travelling distance to the local hospital.

Staff supported clients to plan their discharge, holding regular discussions throughout their period of rehabilitation and documenting arrangements in care plans. This included referrals or signposting to other local services and working with social care providers to identify appropriate step-down care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff promoted a culture in which clients felt empowered to give their views. Clients could give feedback about the service in informal discussions with staff, daily meetings, surveys, an anonymous feedback/suggestions form, by contacting the on-call service, and at point of discharge. Clients told us they felt comfortable raising concerns or sharing feedback and felt that action would be taken if they did.

All staff were trained in equality, diversity, inclusion, and human rights. Equity and diversity champions were in place through Turning Point to provide guidance, as required.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff members supported clients to make decisions about their care, treatment, and their future following rehabilitation. A former client told us that staff had supported them preparing to move home, while we observed another client holding discussions with staff about new housing arrangements.

Care plans were personalised, reflective of client voice, and clearly reflected the needs, wishes, and goals of the client. Where other professionals contributed to the client’s care, staff ensured they were appropriately involved in planning discussions.