Turning Point Lincolnshire PHSU Recovery Partnership

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

Responsive - this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At this assessment we rated the service as good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

Care and treatment were planned collaboratively with people and tailored to their individual needs. Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed, and staff made appropriate adjustments to support communication, including interpreting services when required. People were actively involved in developing their care plans and understood the care and treatment available to them, which promoted choice, autonomy and control. Information was provided in clear, accessible formats that reflected people’s needs, and staff ensured consent was obtained before sharing information.

The service demonstrated a good understanding of local population needs and worked to maintain continuity of care, including for individuals leaving prison. It adapted its approach to improve engagement with specific community groups. Staff and leaders considered equity and inclusion in both planning and delivery, and outreach work supported people who were not currently accessing treatment.

Planning for ongoing and future care was consistent and responsive to changing needs.

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 make sure people are at the centre of their care and treatment choices and we decide, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

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 responded swiftly to changes in people’s needs, ensuring care and treatment plans remained up to date and effective. Plans were comprehensive, addressing physical and mental health needs alongside emotional and social factors, and included reasonable adjustments for individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Staff ensured that people remained central to all decisions about their care, working with them to agree how best to respond to any changes in their circumstances.

People were actively involved in developing their care plans. The plans we reviewed were detailed, consistent, and tailored to each person’s unique needs, preferences, and circumstances. Staff worked collaboratively with individuals, their families (where appropriate), and external partners to ensure a genuinely person‑centred approach.

People received clear, accurate information about their treatment options, including associated benefits and risks. Where relevant, staff encouraged the involvement of families or carers. Shared decision‑making was a routine part of practice, supporting autonomy and ensuring that care aligned with each person’s wishes. One person told us, “I am treated as an individual and respected. The team all know me and my care is personal to me.”

Care coordinators maintained close contact with individuals throughout their care pathway, supporting communication, advocacy, and administrative processes to enhance the overall experience. Staff highlighted the importance of getting to know people directly and building relationships through consistent, real‑time interaction on the unit.

Staff could adjust appointments when required, such as offering ground‑floor sessions for easier access. People told us that staff were flexible and responsive to their commitments, including fitting appointments around full‑time work or other responsibilities. Appointments were available both face‑to‑face and by telephone.

A daily rota ensured that a recovery worker was always available for people using the drop‑in service. Information about relevant helplines—including mental health, domestic abuse, and housing support—was clearly displayed for anyone who needed it.

Care and treatment were planned with people and adapted to their individual needs. Care plans were personalised and kept up to date, and staff provided interpreting or other communication adjustments where required. People felt involved in their care planning and understood what to expect, supporting informed choice and control.

Description: We understand the diverse health and care needs of people and our local communities, so care is joined-up, flexible and supports choice and continuity.

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.

People were given clear, accurate and up‑to‑date information about their treatment options and the support available to them, including the potential benefits and risks. Where appropriate, staff actively encouraged the involvement of families or carers in discussions. Shared decision‑making was firmly embedded in practice, promoting autonomy and ensuring that individuals’ needs, preferences and rights were fully reflected in their care.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the needs of the local community and worked proactively to maintain continuity of care, including for people leaving prison. Approaches were adapted to improve engagement with specific community groups, for example through the use of tailored information and resources designed to meet diverse needs.

Governance meeting minutes demonstrated that continuity of care targets were not only discussed but actively monitored as part of the service’s oversight processes. Leaders regularly reviewed performance against these targets, considered any emerging gaps or risks, and identified actions to improve service continuity. This showed that continuity of care was recognised as a priority within the governance framework, with senior staff maintaining clear visibility of progress and ensuring accountability across teams.

Staff made reasonable adjustments to support people in accessing services and coordinated care effectively with other providers when required.
The service had a well‑established multidisciplinary structure, including an advanced recovery practitioner for domestic abuse, a substance use mental health team, a young people and young adults’ team, an engagement team, a hospital liaison team, a psychology team, and a criminal justice team. These specialist teams helped ensure that people received care aligned with their individual needs and circumstances.

The service had developed strong and effective partnerships with a range of external agencies and third‑sector organisations to enhance the support available to people. This included Turning Point staff delivering training to partner organisations on the safe administration of naloxone, helping to strengthen community responses to overdose risk.

The service had a dedicated specialist employment team that provided tailored support to help people move into work. Staff offered personalised guidance, including assistance with writing and developing CVs, searching for suitable job opportunities, and accessing relevant training. They also supported individuals to prepare for interviews, helping to build confidence and improve employability. This targeted support ensured that employment planning was integrated into people’s wider recovery goals and responded to their individual skills, aspirations and circumstances.

Description: We provide appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that we tailor to individual needs.

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 had robust policies and procedures in place to ensure that patient information was managed confidentially and securely, in line with general data protection regulation (GDPR) requirements. Staff routinely identified, documented, and reviewed patients’ communication needs, making reasonable adjustments in accordance with the accessible information standard.

Staff provided people with accurate, up‑to‑date information about their care and treatment in formats that reflected their individual communication needs, as well as those of their families. Systems were in place to ensure information could be adapted into accessible formats, such as easy‑read materials or translated documents, to support understanding. Interpreter services were used appropriately to promote clarity and ensure people were fully informed. One person told us, “Staff always give me leaflets and take time to read things to me if I don’t understand.”

People, their families and carers were kept informed about care and treatment progress while confidentiality and privacy were maintained at all times. Information on how to raise concerns or make a complaint was clearly displayed throughout the locations that we visited, and staff supported individuals to understand their rights and how to access support if needed.

Staff made required notifications to external bodies in line with statutory responsibilities. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission as required by the terms of their registration, demonstrating appropriate compliance.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology necessary to carry out their roles effectively, which supported safe and efficient care delivery.

People received comprehensive information packs at their first appointment, helping them understand what to expect from the service and how to access support.

Where appropriate, families and carers were involved in discussions about care and treatment. Clear processes ensured communication was timely, accurate and effective, supporting collaborative decision‑making and consistency of care.

Description: We make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. We involve them in decisions about their care and tell them what’s changed as a result.

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.

Staff supported people and their families to provide feedback or raise concerns, and people understood how to make a complaint. Information on how to access support including interpreter services was clearly displayed across all service locations, ensuring the process was accessible to everyone.

We reviewed service complaints received between 03/12/2025 and 03/03/2026. During this period, the provider had received three complaints across six locations. All three complaints had been fully reviewed, actioned appropriately, and the outcomes were shared with the individuals involved.

People were encouraged to share their views during group meetings, one‑to‑one sessions, and via feedback forms located in waiting areas. Our review of community meeting minutes showed that feedback and concerns were clearly documented, responded to promptly, and followed up with clear and transparent actions. Updates were shared with those involved to ensure they were informed about the outcome. One people told us, “Staff encourage you to feedback and raise concerns if you have any. They always let you know what’s happening and what’s been done.”

Staff received regular updates on complaints and their outcomes, and learning from these was used to identify areas for development and implement positive changes where needed. This demonstrated a responsive approach and a culture of continuous improvement.

LRP had a dedicated service user involvement manager, supported by a team of service user involvement representatives, ensuring that the voices of people who used the service actively shaped its delivery and ongoing development. Regular forums and structured feedback mechanisms were in place to gather experiences, enabling continuous review and improvement of the service offer.

The senior operations manager attended these forums to engage directly with service users, reinforcing a culture of openness and accountability. The service user involvement manager also contributed to operational leadership group and partnership board meetings, ensuring lived experience informed strategic decision‑making and partnership working.

Description: We make sure that everyone can access the care, support and treatment they need when they need it.

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 and leaders worked effectively with external organisations to improve access to services and support seamless transitions between different parts of the care pathway. The team collaborated closely with commissioners to coordinate assessment, treatment, and ongoing support, ensuring that care was tailored to each patient’s individual needs and delivered at the right time.

Staff and leaders ensured people could access care and support in ways that aligned with their personal circumstances, preferences, and requirements. Robust assessment processes were in place to identify potential barriers to care and remove them early, particularly for people with complex needs, enduring mental illness, or those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010. This approach helped ensure equity of access and supported the delivery of safe, person‑centred care.

The service maintained strong, proactive links with aftercare providers, including crisis teams pharmacies and GP practices. Discharge planning was clinically appropriate, collaborative, and coordinated with external partners to ensure continuity of care. Staff focused on supporting safe, sustainable transitions, with clear arrangements in place for follow‑up, community support, and risk management. This helped promote positive outcomes and supported patients in maintaining their recovery once they left the service.

There was a dedicated recovery worker on duty each day to ensure that anyone experiencing a crisis could be seen and supported promptly. This daily provision meant that people did not have to wait for scheduled appointments when urgent needs arose. Staff were able to offer immediate guidance, de‑escalation, and signposting to additional support where required. This consistent availability contributed to a safe and responsive service, ensuring people in crisis received timely intervention and felt confident that help was accessible whenever needed. When people required support outside these hours, they were sign posted to appropriate agencies such as The Samaritans or the crisis team.

People were able to self‑refer into the service, ensuring that support was easily accessible without the need for a formal referral from another professional. This open‑access approach reduced barriers to treatment and enabled individuals to seek help at the earliest opportunity. Staff reported that the self‑referral pathway helped reach people who might not otherwise engage with services, including those in crisis or those who preferred to seek support independently. The process was straightforward, well‑publicised, and available through multiple routes, ensuring the service remained inclusive and responsive to local needs.

Staff provided effective support to people when they were referred or transferred between services, ensuring continuity of care throughout the process. People described experiencing a smooth handover from hospital to community services, with follow‑up arrangements in place before discharge. Community appointments were scheduled in advance and that staff carried out telephone check‑ins to monitor their wellbeing and ensure they felt supported during the transition. This approach helped reduce anxiety, promoted engagement, and ensured people did not experience gaps in their care.

Description: We actively seek out and listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. We tailor the care, support and treatment in response to this.

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 consistently upheld the principles of equality, diversity and human rights in their day‑to‑day practice, working in accordance with relevant legislation and organisational expectations. Teams made appropriate and meaningful reasonable adjustments to meet each person’s social, cultural and religious needs. This included working with communication support services, adapting written information into accessible formats, and delivering care in ways that respected each individual’s identity, background and personal circumstances.

The service had robust equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) policies in place, which provided clear guidance for staff and supported compliance with statutory requirements. These policies were designed to prevent discrimination, reduce disadvantage for people with protected characteristics, and promote fairness across all areas of service delivery. They also ensured that individuals had equitable access to treatment, information and facilities.

Staff actively sought feedback from people who might be at greater risk of poorer outcomes or health inequalities. This information was used to inform personalised care planning and shape improvements in service provision. People were encouraged and supported to express their views, contributing to a culture where people felt listened to, respected and reassured that their feedback would lead to meaningful change.

We observed that the service had made reasonable adjustments to ensure treatment was accessible to people with a range of needs, including those who were neurodivergent. A welcome booklet had been developed to help reduce anxiety about attending appointments, providing clear written explanations accompanied by pictures to support understanding and familiarity with the service environment.

Description: We support people to plan for important life changes, so they can have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

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, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported people and their families to plan for the future and make informed decisions about ongoing care and support. Families were actively involved in discussions, with staff ensuring that decisions reflected the peoples wishes, needs, and personal preferences. This inclusive approach enabled patients and those important to them to feel engaged, prepared, and fully informed throughout their care journey.

Staff worked collaboratively with people to develop personalised care plans that accurately captured their views, goals, and individual requirements. These plans were dynamic and were reviewed regularly to ensure they remained relevant and responsive to any changes in health, circumstances, or risk. Treatment, transition, and discharge plans were also updated routinely, ensuring that patients received coordinated, continuous support as their needs evolved.

Staff were able to identify and support individuals who were at risk of disengaging from the service through the use of a re‑engagement plan. This formed part of each person’s initial risk assessment and care plan, enabling staff to proactively discuss any emerging barriers to engagement and put actions in place to reduce the risk of premature discharge. This approach helped maintain continuity of care and ensured people were not lost to follow‑up.

The service offered a range of future support options tailored to different stages of recovery. This included access to detoxification and rehabilitation pathways, employment support, and a variety of recovery and wellbeing groups. These options provided people with structured, ongoing opportunities to build resilience, develop new skills and maintain progress.

Potential discharges were discussed at weekly multidisciplinary team meetings, ensuring coordinated oversight and consistent decision‑making. Staff also held discussions with peoples to ensure they understood the process and were fully involved in planning next steps. This approach ensured that discharge decisions were safe, appropriate and supported by clear, shared planning.