Turning Point Leicester City Substance Misuse

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first rating for this service. This key question has been rated Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

We have not awarded this service a score for Caring.

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

The service did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Most clients reported that the service maintained their privacy and dignity. However, 2 clients reported that opiate prescriptions were often given in non-confidential areas. One client reported that they observed this happening to other clients too, and they were not comfortable with lots of people knowing they were on an opiate prescription. Another client said their prescription was sometimes given out in corridors, but that they didn’t mind. We also observed a client being issued a prescription in the reception area during our assessment.

Leaders attempted to address this in June 2025 by sending a reminder to staff around prescription protocol. However, this had not been embedded as observed during our inspection in December 2025. Since the inspection, the provider has evidenced that a further reminder has been sent to staff, and supplementary operation prescribing processes training is being designed to ensure overall consistency in this area.

All clients and carers we spoke to were positive about staff, saying they were polite and respectful. One client reported that their recovery worker recalled details from their conversations and often checked in with them after sessions to see how they were feeling, which helped them feel heard and valued. One client told us they felt like they could call the service at any time.

All clients reported feeling safe whilst using the service. Eight clients told us that confidentiality was discussed with them. One of these was unable to be asked due to time constraints.

One client spoke positively of staff, stating they were fantastic and have gone over and above for them. Another client told us they have worked with other services and Turning Point had been the most supportive.

The service treated people as individuals and was exceptional in how they made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The service took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service had gone above and beyond to reach vulnerable clients, including meeting in places more suited to the individual such as cafes, or their homes. The service also had a rough sleepers team, whose function was to reach homeless clients and ensure they could still access treatment if required. The service was very understanding of the ethnic diversity in the city and had developed alternative locations to reach clients, including religious buildings and food banks. The service had close partnerships with charities called the Sikh Recovery Network and Spinney Hill Recovery, who captured clients with substance misuse needs and provided non-judgmental support in the lens of Sikh and Muslim faith. The service also sent out a questionnaire to staff to capture what different languages are more prominent in Leicester, to create and adapt materials to reach more clients. The service tried to reach more clients with different demographics to break down barriers and improve access to services by employing Punjabi, Polish and Afro-Caribbean Leads. The service also provided a leaflet around reducing risk of harm to children in the home in multiple languages.

The service supported a client with a hearing impairment by sending them text messages instead of calling as per their preference and ensured a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter was present for all sessions. They supported a client with a sight impairment by contacting them via telephone calls as per their preference and made a referral to adult social care services. A nurse and recovery worker planned a home visit to this client to complete a liver scan and BBV test. Both clients also had clear guidance on their notes of preferred method contact.

One client had a plan with their recovery worker that allowed drop-in visits, accommodating their challenges with attending scheduled appointments. The service had created neurodiverse-friendly rooms at the hub to better meet client needs which included sensory lighting and fidget toys. The service had an easy-read introduction to the service for those with neurodiverse/learning disability needs.

The service worked well with partner agencies and successfully supported a client who had an amputation surgery secure more appropriate housing.

A working lift provided disabled access, while ground-floor clinic and side rooms ensured that all clients could access services if the lift was not operational. The service had an employment team that supported clients to get back into work, as well recruiting peer mentors.

The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

All clients told us they felt that their views and wishes were sought throughout their treatment, and they felt involved in their care; for example, if they were happy with their opiate substitute doses.

One client told us they chose not to receive any further support regarding their physical health and that staff respected this.

Another client told us that they felt their opinions were considered. A different client said that staff promoted positive coping skills to empower them to manage their recovery independently.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed every 3 months with clients.

We observed a suggestion box in the waiting area, where clients could give their feedback and ideas to improve the service or compliment staff.

The service listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were aware of and dealt with any specific risk issues such as missed appointments. The service had a positive re-engagement policy to advise staff how to manage and support clients who missed appointments.

The service provided drop-in sessions for assessments for those clients who did not have an appointment. Staff identified and responded to changing risks to, or posed by, patients. We observed a team meeting where staff were informed of higher drug use in the local area compared to normal. Following this, staff were advised to carry naloxone if they attended the local community whilst at work.

Clients told us they felt staff understood their needs.

The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We spoke with 19 staff throughout the assessment. All staff reported a good working culture. Staff told us they feel able to give feedback on processes and raise concerns if needed. New staff said they felt welcomed and all staff felt supported in their roles. They told us leaders were approachable, friendly and available, and that the teams were diverse with a range of experience.

Leaders gave an example of how they were able to be flexible to meet the needs of a staff member whose physical health had deteriorated, adjusting their duties accordingly so that they could still deliver care to clients.

There was evidence that staff, volunteers and peer mentors were celebrated for their achievements under the “Inspiring Leicestershire” recognition and reward scheme. One client also gave positive feedback about specific staff members during the assessment. Good practice highlighted from mortality and morbidity meetings and client death reviews were discussed with the team.

There were notice boards that displayed information in relation to staff wellbeing.

Staff received supervision most of the time. We found there were some gaps in the recording of supervision, with some records either blank or noted as “cancelled” with no further explanation. Staff largely received supervision within an 8-week period in line with the National Supervision Policy. Staff interviewed on site did not raise concerns regarding supervision, and the service also offered group supervision sessions.