Turning Point Lincolnshire PHSU Recovery Partnership

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At this assessment we rated this key question good.

Staff treated patients with compassion and kindness. They respected patients’ privacy and dignity. They understood the individual needs of patients and supported patients to understand and manage their care, treatment or condition. Staff involved patients in care planning and risk assessments and actively sought their feedback on the quality of care provided. Staff informed and involved families and carers appropriately.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Description: We always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and we respect their privacy and dignity. We treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff supported people to understand and manage their care, treatment and ongoing recovery. Each person was allocated a dedicated recovery worker, with whom they met regularly on a one‑to‑one basis. These meetings provided structured opportunities to review progress, explore challenges and plan next steps in the individual’s treatment journey.

Staff signposted people to additional services when appropriate and offered practical support to help them access those services, ensuring their wider needs were addressed in a holistic and coordinated way.

People were consistently treated with dignity and respect. They described staff as non‑judgemental, caring, friendly, and highly knowledgeable. People reported feeling safe, supported and listened to. During our visit, we observed interactions that were calm, private and sensitive. Staff gave people adequate time to speak, ensured understanding before moving forward, and created an environment in which individuals felt able to talk openly about complex or sensitive matters.

Each hub had established clothing rails to support people who were less fortunate. Care packs were also available, containing a range of essential items to help individuals stay safe, warm, and connected.

Staff demonstrated a thorough understanding of people’s individual needs, including their personal, cultural, social and religious backgrounds. One person shared an example of their keyworker visiting them at home during a particularly difficult period, which they felt was instrumental in helping them cope.

The service made reasonable adjustments to support people with physical health needs. For example, pharmacy medication deliveries could be arranged for people who were unable to collect prescriptions themselves.

Staff felt confident to raise concerns about any disrespectful, discriminatory or inappropriate behaviour towards peoples. They reported having no fear of repercussions when speaking up. Information on how to escalate concerns was clearly displayed on staff notice boards, including a poster with a QR code linking to further guidance.

Staff took appropriate steps to maintain confidentiality and protect people’s personal information. We observed staff locking computer screens when away from their desks and handling information discreetly.

Description: We treat people as individuals and make sure their care, support and treatment meets their needs and preferences, taking account of their strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service treated people as individuals and ensured that their care, support and treatment were tailored to their personal needs and preferences. Staff took account of each person’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural identity, protected characteristics and unique background when planning and delivering support.

Care planning was person‑centred and reflected people’s own views and priorities. All 10 care and treatment records we reviewed contained personalised plans with goals that had been set collaboratively with the individual. Staff adapted communication approaches to meet people’s language and literacy needs, including using interpreters where required and taking cultural considerations into account.

People were supported to access clear, accessible information about their treatment options, local support services, their rights, the complaints process and other aspects of their care. The service provided information in a variety of formats, including leaflets and posters displayed throughout communal areas, waiting rooms and consultation spaces. This ensured that people could routinely access important information without needing to ask staff directly.

Information leaflets covered a broad range of topics, such as treatment pathways, harm‑reduction advice, confidentiality, safeguarding, and how to raise concerns. Staff also signposted people to external organisations where additional specialist support was available. This helped individuals make informed choices about their care and understand what to expect at different stages of their treatment journey.

To meet the needs of the diverse people using the service, information leaflets were available in several languages commonly spoken by people using the service. Posters displayed in these languages informed people that translated materials could be provided on request. This proactive approach ensured that people whose first language was not English were not disadvantaged and could access the same information as others.

Managers had systems in place to ensure timely access to communication support, including interpreters and British Sign Language (BSL) signers. Staff could book these services quickly and without difficulty, either in advance or at short notice when a people arrived unexpectedly. This allowed staff to communicate effectively with people who had limited English proficiency, sensory impairments or specific communication needs, supporting equitable access to care and ensuring people fully understood their treatment and rights.

A specially designed recovery academy pathway had been developed to support people into roles within LRP and the wider workforce. A core element of LRP’s vision was to help individuals return to employment and use the skills and insight gained through their recovery to support others. The drug and alcohol support service had created an academy programme to maximise people’s chances of success. As a result of this approach, almost a third of the LRP staff team had personal lived experience of substance use.

Description: We promote people’s independence, so they know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment. and wellbeing.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service actively promoted people’s independence by ensuring they understood their rights and were supported to exercise choice and control over their care, treatment and wellbeing. People felt that staff consistently respected their individual needs and took time to ask thoughtful questions to understand their wishes and preferences for care and support.

People were supported to make informed decisions, with staff providing clear explanations of treatment options, expected outcomes and available support. Staff adapted their communication and approach according to individual needs, ensuring people received information in a way they could understand. Appointments were offered flexibly, including adjustments to frequency, format and timing, enabling people to engage in treatment at a pace that suited them.

Practical support was also available to help people maintain independence. This included assistance with arranging or attending GP appointments, accessing community services and connecting with wider support networks. Peoples felt well supported in navigating external systems and accessing additional resources relevant to their recovery.

The service ensured that people were aware of, and able to access, advocacy support when required. Staff directed people to appropriate advocacy services and used a “How to Work with Advocates” guide, which helped ensure individuals could participate meaningfully in decisions about their care. This guidance supported staff to work collaboratively with advocates and empowered people to express their views, challenge decisions when necessary and be fully involved in shaping their treatment.

LRP had a dedicated individual placement support (IPS) team that provided focused support to help individuals secure and sustain employment as part of their recovery. The IPS team worked closely with service users to understand their goals, strengths, and employment aspirations, offering tailored guidance throughout the job‑seeking process. Peoples were supported with a range of practical interventions, including curriculumvitae (CV) development, interview preparation, benefits guidance, and in‑work support where required.

Description: We listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We respond to these in that moment and will act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. 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 specific risks associated with the people who used the service and took appropriate action to manage these effectively. This included monitoring attendance and responding promptly when people missed appointments. Staff demonstrated flexibility in rearranging sessions to ensure people remained engaged in treatment. The service operated a clear and supportive re‑engagement policy, which guided staff on how to follow up non‑attendance in a proactive and non‑punitive way. This approach helped to maintain contact with people who were at risk of disengaging from treatment.

Staff were able to identify and respond to changing risks, both to people themselves and to others. Through discussions with staff, we found they had a strong awareness of how to manage their own safety during home visits. Staff described checking in with colleagues before and after visits and using an agreed safe word to request immediate assistance if required. This demonstrated a robust and embedded approach to lone‑working safety.

People had their needs, views and preferences were consistently listened to and acted upon. They felt staff took their concerns seriously and responded promptly when they raised issues or needed additional support.

Across the locations we visited, we observed duty rotas designed to ensure that a keyworker was available throughout opening hours for people who attended without a scheduled appointment. Staff were clear that no people would be turned away; if someone presented in need of help, a staff member would always be allocated to offer support. This ensured people had timely access to care and reduced the risk of crises or disengagement.

The service’s approach to risk management demonstrated a commitment to people safety, continuity of care and responsive support, ensuring people received the right help at the right time.

Description: We care about and promote the wellbeing of our staff, and we support and enable them to always deliver person centred care.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt respected, supported and valued within the service. They reported having access to a range of wellbeing initiatives, including regular supervision, structured induction check‑ins and opportunities for debriefing after challenging or emotionally demanding situations. All staff members shared positive feedback and spoke positively about the support they received and said they felt appreciated and included as part of the wider team.

The provider actively recognised and celebrated staff achievements. During our visit, we observed examples of success being acknowledged in monthly team meetings, helping to foster a positive and motivating team culture.

Many staff members had progressed internally within the organisation. Several individuals described career development from recovery worker roles into advanced recovery worker and team leader positions. One staff member had successfully transitioned from volunteer peer mentor to recovery worker. Leaders were proud to develop “home‑grown” talent and described supporting staff to build confidence, skills and experience through structured development opportunities.

Staff felt well supported by the management team and that they felt safe at work. They reported that leaders were approachable, visible and responsive when concerns were raised or when staff required guidance.

A range of up‑to‑date policies were in place to support staff in their roles. These included a learning and development policy, a lone‑working policy and an incident management policy. Staff were aware of these procedures and described how they used them to inform safe and consistent practice.