Turning Point Lincolnshire PHSU Recovery Partnership

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

Effective – 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 this assessment we have given the rating good. Staff assessed the physical and mental health of all patients on admission. They developed individual care plans which were reviewed regularly through multidisciplinary discussion and updated as needed. Staff provided a range of treatment and care for patients based on national guidance and best practice. All teams included or had access to a range of service based specialists required to meet the needs of clients in the community. Staff from different disciplines worked together as a team to benefit patients. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

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 maximise the effectiveness of people’s care and treatment by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

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.

A review of 10 care records showed that comprehensive assessments were consistently completed within required timescales, with appropriate adjustments made based on individuals’ physical and mental health. Assessments were holistic, covering substance use, mental and physical health, safeguarding, and social needs. Physical‑health checks, including blood pressure, ECGs and liver function tests, were undertaken when indicated and clearly documented, demonstrating proactive monitoring of health risks and supporting safe clinical decision‑making.

Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and aligned with national guidance and internal policies. Governance documentation, including 72‑hour reports and mortality and morbidity meeting minutes, provided strong evidence of oversight and the consistent use of validated screening tools.

Family support was fully embedded within the model, offering automatic access to support and working jointly with keyworkers through MDTs and team meetings.

Leaders highlighted ongoing work to develop specialist ADHD and ketamine pathways in response to rising demand and emerging trends. These pathways were innovative and locally enhanced, with ketamine‑specific psychosocial interventions and peer support developed in collaboration with partners, service users, and families.

Description: We plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what is important and matters to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

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 understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Health Act Code of Practice and discharged these well.

The service planned and delivered care and treatment in partnership with people, ensuring that what mattered to them was central to their support. Care was delivered in line with current legislation, recognised evidence‑based practice, and national standards.

Care and treatment pathways followed relevant national guidance, including best‑practice recommendations for substance misuse treatment. Prescribing decisions were clearly documented within clinical records and routinely communicated to people’s GPs to support continuity of care. Clinical safeguards were well established, and regular reviews were undertaken with input from the multidisciplinary team. Across all care and treatment records reviewed, the rationale for prescribing decisions was consistently documented, and correspondence to GPs clearly set out treatment plans, risk considerations, and any required monitoring.

Recovery plans were personalised and reviewed regularly. Records showed that goals were discussed during keywork sessions and updated to reflect changes in people’s needs and progress. These plans captured individual priorities—for example, rebuilding family relationships, reducing alcohol use, accessing housing support, or improving mental wellbeing—demonstrating a tailored approach to recovery.

Clinical quality and decision‑making were supported through structured multidisciplinary meetings. These forums were used to review complex cases, assess risk, and ensure that care remained aligned with national clinical guidance. Staff reported that these meetings promoted shared decision‑making, enhanced clinical oversight, and supported consistency in treatment practice across the team.

The service delivered a range of evidence‑based psychosocial interventions grounded in Motivational Interviewing techniques. These interventions formed a core component of keywork sessions and group programmes delivered by Recovery Workers. They were embedded within treatment pathways and supported people to strengthen motivation, build recovery skills, and make sustainable positive changes in relation to their substance use.

Trauma‑informed practice had been identified as a key development priority for the service. Although training had been planned at the time of inspection, it had not yet been delivered to staff. Staff described a commitment to working in a trauma‑informed manner; however, confidence and consistency varied across the team. The provider recognised this and had outlined plans to strengthen staff competence through formal training.

Description: We work effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only need to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they move between different services.

We scored the service as 3. The evidence showed a good standard. The service worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff worked collaboratively and effectively across the service to ensure that people received coordinated and responsive care. Regular multidisciplinary meetings were well established and supported good communication, shared decision‑making, and oversight of clinical risk. During our visit, we attended the daily FLASH meeting, which provided a structured forum for staff to review people of concern, discuss emerging risks, plan home visits, allocate daily tasks, and share operational updates. Staff also used this space to acknowledge positive progress and good practice examples, which helped support team cohesion and maintain morale.

Staff worked closely with colleagues from other health and social care disciplines when needed to meet people’s needs. This included joint working with specialist midwives to support pregnant people, collaboration with Local Authority safeguarding teams, and liaison with external partners involved in people’s care. Records and staff interviews confirmed that these relationships enabled timely information sharing, coordinated risk management, and a more holistic approach to treatment planning.

When peoples presented with signs of mental ill health, including anxiety or depression, staff made appropriate referrals for mental‑health assessment. A dedicated substance‑use mental health team was embedded within the service, providing specialist input and supporting seamless access to psychological assessment, formulation, and ongoing care. Staff reported that the presence of this embedded team strengthened joint working, enhanced continuity of care, and ensured that mental‑health needs were addressed alongside substance‑use treatment.

Description: We support people to manage their health and wellbeing so they can maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

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.

The service supported people to improve their health and wellbeing, enabling them to increase their independence, make informed choices, and where possible, reduce their future need for ongoing care and support. Staff promoted healthier lifestyles through routine assessments, structured interventions, and access to a range of recovery‑focused activities.

People were offered harm‑reduction advice tailored to their individual circumstances and treatment goals. Health checks relevant to substance‑misuse treatment—such as blood pressure monitoring, ECGs, and liver scans where clinically indicated—were routinely completed and recorded. These checks helped staff to identify potential physical‑health issues early and provided a foundation for safe prescribing and treatment planning.

The service offered a range of meaningful recovery activities to support social connection, structure, and wellbeing. These included access to local allotments, creative and therapeutic sessions, recovery walks, and a twice‑weekly brunch club. People felt that these activities helped them establish routine, reduce isolation, and build confidence in their recovery.

Recovery plans routinely referenced broader lifestyle interventions, including smoking‑cessation support and healthy‑eating advice. Where needs extended beyond the core substance‑misuse offer, staff signposted or referred people to external services in line with local care pathways, such as sexual‑health clinics, mental‑health services, and housing support.

Across all locations, provisions were in place to support safer injecting practices. People could access sterile injecting equipment and were provided with sharps bins to ensure safe disposal. In addition, the service offered condoms and basic dental‑care items such as toothbrushes and toothpaste, supporting wider health and harm‑reduction needs.

Staff delivered training in the use of Naloxone, a medicine used to reverse the effects of opioid overdose. People identified as being at risk were provided with Naloxone kits and taught how to use them safely. This formed part of a broader harm‑reduction approach aimed at preventing avoidable deaths.

People were able to access a range of focused wellbeing groups, such as wellbeing connect, the alcohol resolution Clinic, and the managing alcohol programme (MAP). These groups provided structured support, education, and peer connection to help people make and sustain positive changes.

Information promoting healthy lifestyles, harm‑reduction strategies, and wider support options was clearly displayed in waiting areas across the service. This ensured that people had easy access to advice and resources to support ongoing health improvement.

Description: We routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes are positive and consistent, and that they meet both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

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 and leaders had robust systems in place to ensure consistent and positive outcomes. Staff actively contributed to monitoring and improving care, using technology to support these processes. Care plans were reviewed regularly to keep them up to date and aligned with people’s changing needs.

The service engaged in a range of benchmarking and collaborative initiatives that supported continuous quality improvement and alignment with national best practice. This enabled the service to participate in regional quality initiatives and strengthened the use of evidence‑based tools in evaluating patient progress and service effectiveness.

The service actively participated in all relevant national clinical audits and benchmarking activities. Engagement in these programmes enabled the team to compare performance against national standards and identified opportunities for quality improvement.

Staff routinely used recognised and evidence‑based rating scales to assess, record, and monitor levels of dependence, risk, and treatment outcomes. These tools were fully integrated into the electronic care records system, ensuring assessments were completed at the point of initial referral and revisited at key stages throughout the person’s treatment journey. This supported a consistent approach to monitoring progress and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions over time.

The service had a structured approach to reviewing outcomes, using both clinical indicators and feedback from people using the service to measure progress. Trends in outcome data were regularly analysed to ensure treatments remained aligned with best practice and to inform service development. Routine monitoring supported a culture of continuous improvement and helped staff identify when care needed to be adapted to better meet individual needs.

Care plans demonstrated clear, person‑centred goals that had been developed collaboratively with individuals. They reflected assessed needs, incorporated people’s strengths and preferences, and followed a holistic and recovery‑focused approach. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure goals remained relevant and meaningful as circumstances changed.

Technology was used effectively to enhance engagement and supported people in managing their appointments. Automated text message reminders were sent directly from the electronic care records system, helping to reduce missed appointments and improve attendance.

Description: We tell people about their rights around consent and respect these when we deliver person-centred care and treatment.

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.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of the relevant consent and decision‑making requirements set out in legislation and national guidance, including the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff knew how to access the organisation’s MCA policies and where to seek specialist advice when needed, including support from senior colleagues and the wider multidisciplinary team (MDT).

All staff were required to complete mandatory training in the Mental Capacity Act Awareness. Training compliance was reported at 92%. During the inspection staff were able to clearly describe how and when to undertake decision‑specific capacity assessments, or how to apply the principles of the MCA consistently in practice. Capacity to consent was assessed and clearly documented as part of the initial clinical assessment. In our review of 10 people records, we found documented evidence of mental‑capacity assessments where required.

Consent to treatment was obtained from all people at the commencement of their care. This included consent for treatment interventions, as well as permissions to share information with other professionals and, where appropriate, with family members. Consent agreements were reviewed every 12 weeks to ensure they remained accurate and reflective of individuals’ wishes. At the start of treatment, staff read a confidentiality statement to each person, checked their understanding, and recorded their agreement. Staff explained people’s rights regarding consent and autonomy, and these were respected throughout the delivery of person‑centred care.

People using the service understood their treatment and how consent applied to their care. In our review of 10 care and treatment records, we found evidence of completed consent to treatment forms, information‑sharing agreements, and confidentiality discussions in all cases.