Turning Point - Suffolk SU Drug and Alcohol Service

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

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 our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always ensure service user records and care plans were completed appropriately.

We reviewed 14 people's records during the inspection. Care plans and relapse prevention plans were often generic and not very person centred. The records lacked a level of detail which did not assure us that there were robust care plans and relapse prevention plans in place for people. For example, in one record's plan for unexpected treatment exit, the response to 3 questions stated "send me letters". We identified there was a need to contact an external agency in the event of unexpected exit from treatment, however this was not included in the plan.

Staff carried out appropriate interventions with service users. However, it was not always well documented in their records. Leaders told us they were aware of the concerns with documentation and were in the process of addressing them through case reviews as part of staff supervision. A new mandatory training course was introduced in March 2025 to further help improve case note documentation.

Staff supported service users to identify appropriate treatment goals based on their needs. Most people we spoke to felt involved in their treatment and stated that they were encouraged to take responsibility for their own recovery. People who used the service told us they were involved in the completion of their care plans and stated that their treatment was tailored to their individual needs.

Staff completed a holistic assessment of each service user. Assessments included people's current and historic mental health concerns, as well as protective factors such as social support, hobbies and mindfulness. People were referred to local community mental health teams as and when required.

Staff made sure that service users had a full physical health assessment, and any ongoing physical health needs were documented in their records. We saw evidence of ongoing review in people's records. People were tested for blood borne viruses (BBV) and offered vaccinations or referral for support where appropriate.

The service planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them and in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff provided a range of treatment interventions suitable for the service user group. The interventions were those recommended by, and were delivered in line with, guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. These included one to one key working, substitute prescribing, community alcohol detoxification, self-management guidance, activities, psycho-social therapy groups and work opportunities.

The service had a psycho-social therapy group timetable for service users such as managing alcohol groups, non-opiate skills-based groups, mindfulness based relapse prevention, motivation sessions and a recovery skills programme which was based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Peer mentors provided additional groups. The service had a psychologist and a psychosocial lead who was a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) therapist who provided 1 to 1 support on a referral basis to people who had a full assessment, care plan and risk assessment in place.

The service used appropriate tools to assess people’s dependency on drugs and/or alcohol. These included the severity of alcohol dependence questionnaire (SADQ) and the severity of dependence scale (SDS). Staff recorded assessment scores in service user records and knew when to escalate results.

Staff participated in clinical audit, benchmarking and quality improvement initiatives. The service carried out audits in medication, prescriptions, health and safety, infection control and records. Leaders participated in benchmarking for successful completions for opiate users. This was monitored by National Drug Treatment Monitoring System, part of the government Office for Health Improvement Disparities. Leaders informed us that the service performance was in the top quartile.

The service worked effectively across teams and services to support people, making sure they only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when they moved between different services.

Staff held monthly multidisciplinary (MDT) meetings to discuss service users and improve their care. The meetings were structured by pathway and took place across all the locations. The meetings covered service user allocations, risks, any lessons learned and relevant information involving external agencies.

Staff shared information about people at effective handover meetings within the team. All sites held a daily morning flash meeting. We observed one of these meetings during the inspection. Staff discussed any risks, incidents, the plan for the day, any assessments and updates for service users. Health and safety tasks were also allocated out. Staff engaged with each other in a supportive and helpful manner.

The teams had effective working relationships, including good handovers, with other relevant teams within the organisation. Communication worked well across the service. Leaders had recently developed a new meeting structure to consolidate governance and communication pathways with all staff throughout the service. Managers and team leaders from across the service met on a monthly basis. The service ran weekly team meetings with a 4 weekly rolling structure which included reflective practice, planning and pathway meetings, alcohol MDT meetings, learning sessions and group supervision.

The teams had effective working relationships with teams outside the organisation. These included 2 local sub-contractors, pharmacies, local authority safeguarding teams, community mental health teams, and other service providers such as housing providers and probation services. People’s records showed communication and updates on treatment and care with other organisations. For example, we saw evidence of discussion with GPs at a local medical committee. The service worked closely with local GPs and staff were in regular communication with them.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing so they could maximise their independence, choice and control, live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff identified people's physical health needs and recorded them in their care plans. Staff supported people to manage issues related to substance misuse. For example, staff carried out tests for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C.

Staff supported service users to live healthier lives. This included harm reduction education and needle exchange. The service offered people electrocardiograms (ECGs) and fibro scans (scans to assess liver health). The service partnered with another organisation to provide people with free personal hygiene products if required.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives by encouraging them to take part in programmes or giving advice. Staff signposted people to health and wellbeing support in the community, such as smoking cessation services and bereavement support.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it and to ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff used recognised rating scales to assess outcomes. Staff told us that they used treatment outcomes profile (TOP) to assess peoples’ progress and outcomes before, during and at the end of treatment. TOP is the national outcome monitoring tool for substance misuse services. Leaders monitored and reported outcome data to commissioners.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when they delivered person-centred care and treatment.

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act and knew how to seek support from the service managers if required. The Mental Capacity Act was included in mandatory training. Staff compliance rates for Mental Capacity Act Awareness training was 87%. There was a Mental Capacity Act policy, which staff knew how to access.

Staff ensured people’s consent to care and treatment was recorded in their records. We saw evidence of consent to treatment and sharing information and assessment of mental capacity in all of the 14 records we reviewed during the inspection.