Turning Point Leicester City Substance Misuse

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

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

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge and experience to perform their roles. Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they applied to the work of their team. Staff felt respected, supported and valued. Governance processes operated effectively. Performance and risk were managed well. Teams had access to the information they needed to provide safe and effective care. Staff collected analysed data about outcomes and performance. They used this to identify improvements.

We have not awarded this service a score for Well-led.

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

The service had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff knew and understood the provider’s vision and values and how they were applied in the work of their team.

Staff had the opportunity to contribute to discussions about the strategy for their service, especially where the service was changing. The leadership team ran a session 3 times a year called ‘lunch with the leadership team’. All operational staff were encouraged to attend, give feedback and provide suggestions to improve the service. These meetings were tracked to ensure outcomes were monitored and allowed all staff to collaborate towards a shared strategy and culture.

We spoke with 19 staff throughout the inspection who told us they all felt able to give their feedback on the running of the service.

The service had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Leaders were experienced in supporting clients with substance use. Senior leaders had worked in recovery worker positions previously and had a sound understanding of how to operate the service. One staff member told us that there is a variety of knowledge and diversity in the workforce.

All staff spoke positively about the leadership of the service and reported an overall good culture with caring leaders. Staff told us that managers were visible, approachable and friendly. Similarly, leaders were complimentary and proud of their teams. One staff member described the culture as healthy, and another said it was supportive.

The service fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff and clients had access to a suggestion box, to allow for anonymised feedback. The service’s electronic incident report tool also had an option for staff to give anonymous feedback under a Freedom to Speak Up option.

Staff and clients were encouraged to complete annual surveys. The service was drafting a 2026 engagement plan based on staff survey results, focusing on psychological safety and feeling valued.

Managers had an open-door policy. Staff told us managers were approachable and they felt comfortable to raise any concerns.

The service valued diversity in their workforce. They work towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who work for them.

Managers put reasonable adjustments in place for staff members to help them carry out their role. Staff could complete inclusion passports if they needed flexibility or additional support within their role for any reason. One staff member had told us they were supported by their manager to seek support for a diagnosis of a neurodiverse condition. Following this, reasonable adjustments were made for them to support with their role. Similarly, a staff member was given more appropriate duties such as auditing when their physical health deteriorated. The service undertook equality monitoring of staff within the service to ensure it is diverse in its make-up and representative of the patient group. The service worked with a union representative who chaired quarterly equality, diversity and inclusion meetings. They also attended senior leadership meetings to give feedback on any concerns.

Staff told us that they could work flexibly if required. They also told us that they felt valued and supported in their roles.

The service also participated in an Equality Diversity & Inclusion Group, as well as an Autism & Neurodiverse Allies Forum.

The service had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and share this securely with others when appropriate.

There was a clear governance framework in place including team meetings, clinical governance and mortality and morbidity meetings. There was also a wide range of multi-disciplinary meetings conducted within the service.

The service had a structured audit programme to track and monitor progress as well as identify areas for improvement. Audits were reviewed and recommendations were implemented to improve client outcomes.

The service had a Business Continuity Plan outlining how to manage different types of emergencies.

Staff had access to the risk register at service level and staff concerns matched those on the risk register. The risk register included issues with technology, consistent with some of the staff feedback. Staff told us and reported in the survey that the systems needed to be updated and felt this affected their ability to do their jobs effectively. Since the inspection, the provider has informed us that they have responded to this issue and will be changing their technology provider in hopes it will address these concerns.

Another risk included funds potentially being cut from the service, also highlighted by senior leaders during our assessment. The risk register had a clear plan of how the senior leaders were intending to address these issues, so it had as limited impact on client care as possible.

Analysis of incidents and deaths informed the quarterly bulletin to ensure all staff were working in accordance with best practice and to improve overall performance.

The service also had an environmental self-audit tool which laid out targets to improve environmental sustainability.

The service complied with the National Drug Treatment Monitoring System (NDTMS) and provided data to them as required.

The service understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services work seamlessly for people. They share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement.

Staff and leaders were open, transparent and actively collaborated with a range of external stakeholders such as the police, the youth justice board and probation services, to improve service delivery. The service also worked closely and held regular meetings with Lived Experience Recovery Organisations (LERO) such as Dear Albert and Changing Futures.

The service engaged with healthcare providers and the local authority on a regular basis to ensure clients received joined up care and timely support, for both physical and mental health needs.

The service focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The service’s lead clinician also worked as a chronic pain specialist, combining pain and addiction support collaboratively. This ensured clients received the same experience at Turning Point that they would receive from the Leicester Pain Clinic in a timelier fashion.

Innovations were taking place at the service. They were developing a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) pathway to further support clients’ physical health needs. The service ran a liver fibro-scanning pilot study aiming to provide earlier intervention to those with excessive alcohol intake by earlier referral to hepatology. This resulted in earlier detection of liver damage in 40 clients across the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland area and prompted referral to hepatology, improving quality of life. This practice may reduce alcohol related admissions to hospitals.

Staff had opportunities to participate in research. The service completed its own research to widen the scope of their support, including effects of cocaine among opiate substitute clients. It had also introduced specific guidance for staff around synthetic opioid use as this was a current theme in the local area