Turning Point - Suffolk SU Drug and Alcohol Service

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

This means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and the service decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs.

The service made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and decided, in partnership with them, how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. Staff told us that length of treatment was dependent upon the individual, their pathway and preferences.

The service provided psycho-social therapy groups and individual therapy to meet the needs of people who used the service. A timetable of available groups was displayed at each of the hub locations. People we spoke with told us the groups were meaningful and supportive.

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.

Staff ensured that patients had access to employment opportunities. The service worked with another local agency who deployed employment specialists in all 3 hubs. They helped people to complete their curriculum vitae (CV), search for jobs and prepare for job interviews.

The service assisted people to access an accredited course to become a peer mentor if they wished to do so. Peer mentors ran informal drop-in sessions to offer people a friendly and supportive way to access the service if they were unsure about starting treatment, or as an additional support if someone had found a group difficult. One peer mentor told us that the service had received positive feedback about the drop in sessions and stated that so many people could benefit from speaking to someone with lived experience.

Staff supported people to maintain contact with families and carers where appropriate.

The service provided appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that they tailored to individual needs.

Staff had access to the equipment and information technology needed to do their work.

Leaders had access to information to support them with their management role. This included information on the performance of the service, staffing and training. This information was presented and discussed in clinical governance meetings.

Staff made notifications to external bodies as needed. The service submitted notifications to the Care Quality Commission in accordance with the requirements of their registration. The service submitted safeguarding referrals to the local authority.

Staff made sure people could access information on treatment and local services. There were many points throughout a service user's journey at the service where they were given information on harm reduction and signposted to local services where appropriate. The service had developed strong working relationships with many local services to support the people using the service. The service also worked with partner agencies to provide more of a holistic service to people, such as support with housing. Staff displayed information about treatment support and local services at the hubs.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The service involved them in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People knew how to complain or raise concerns. People told us if they had any complaints, they would speak with their key worker in the first instance. People who had raised a complaint or concern told us it was dealt with appropriately. When people complained or raised concerns, they received feedback.

Staff understood the policy on complaints and knew how to handle them. All complaints were documented and assessed to establish the appropriate action to take. Not all concerns required a full investigation, and some were resolved through a discussion with a keyworker.

Staff knew how to acknowledge complaints and people received feedback from managers after the investigation into their complaint. The service received 9 complaints between July 2024 and June 2025. The service monitored complaints for any themes, but it was not always possible due to the low numbers of complaints. The service received 2 complaints that related to people in treatment for support with alcohol. The service has continued to develop the alcohol pathway to enhance treatment options.

The service made sure that everyone could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The service had a referral criteria which was made clear to staff assessing new referrals. The criteria ensured people who could benefit from the service were able to access it. The service provided treatment and followed clear pathways to ensure people received the appropriate support and treatment.

The service operated from satellite locations across the county to make the service more accessible to people who found it difficult to travel. Leaders told us that even though the service experienced staff vacancies, it was important to maintain the satellite locations to promote engagement in treatment and improve did not attend (DNA) rates.

The service ran some Saturday groups from the Ipswich hub and planned to roll them out across the remaining locations. People who used the service told us that the service was flexible if they needed to change their appointments

Waiting times from referral to assessment were 3.5 weeks at Lowestoft, 2 weeks in Ipswich and 1.5 weeks at Bury St Edmunds. The service aimed to assess people within 3 weeks of referral. This target was met at Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds, but not at the Lowestoft site. Leaders addressed this by increasing the number of assessment sessions available and offering some assessment appointments in the evening.

Staff told us there was some disengagement from people during the time they waited between referral and an assessment. The peer mentor drop-in sessions were one method used to help improve continued engagement, and they were open to people before they received their assessment. Peer mentors supported people awaiting their assessments to prepare for them, such as by helping them to create an alcohol and/or substance diary ready for their assessment.

Leaders told us that waiting times from referral to assessment were longer than they would like. Leaders told us the recruitment challenges they were facing contributed to the increased waiting times. Leaders monitored waiting times and put plans in place to try to make improvements. For example, leaders split the assessment from one single assessment into 2 separate assessments. This was implemented from February 2025. Data from January 2025 - March 2025 showed a 2% decrease in the proportion of people waiting over 3 weeks for an assessment.

Leaders also monitored the proportion of people waiting over 6 weeks to start their first intervention. Data from April 2024 – March 2025 showed that no one waited over 6 weeks to start their first intervention.

The service actively sought out and listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. The service tailored the care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff told us the service was inclusive of people from diverse backgrounds. Staff compliance rate for the completion of training in equality, diversity and inclusion awareness was 90%. The compliance rate for training in autism awareness was 96%.

Leaders at the Bury St Edmunds and Ipswich hubs assessed the location, staff and service against the Autism and Neurodiverse Friendly ServiceStandards 2022. The standards were met in all applicable areas with some sensitivities highlighted. The service appointed an equality, diversity and inclusion champion at the Ipswich hub.

The service had a comprehensive diversity and inclusion action plan with actions assigned to an individual and a target for completion. Progress against the actions was documented. Actions were internal and external and included the workforce, workplace, people, services and outreach. Leaders collected and used data and analysis to develop their plans.

The service provided interpreters for people if required. Staff also made information leaflets available in languages spoken by people who used the service.

Staff within the service and the wider organisation promoted a culture in which the people using the service felt empowered to give their views. Staff collected feedback from people who use the service, their families and carers. We reviewed the feedback from March 2025 – May 2025 and all the feedback was positive.

The service supported people to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

Staff supported people to make decisions about their care and treatment and their future. Discharge was dependent on the individual, their needs and their pathway. Staff told us conversations and plans for discharge were encouraged at the beginning of treatment. Progress through treatment depended upon the individual and the service would not discharge someone until they were ready. People could access aftercare support from the service following discharge. Peer mentors supported the aftercare work and made telephone contact with people after they finished treatment to check on their welfare.

There was a process in place to support people who did not attend appointments to try to re-engage them into the service. Staff contacted other agencies including pharmacies or housing services if appropriate to try to ensure people were supported.

Staff ensured all relevant healthcare professionals and other relevant bodies were involved in planning the care and treatment of people with complex needs. The service had a psychologist and a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) therapist. There was a nursing team as well as staff with specialist knowledge of opiates, non-opiates, alcohol and criminal justice. The service had developed positive links with other agencies and signposted people to them where appropriate to ensure they received the right support. Leaders sat on various panels within the local community which supported access to certain partner agencies and supported the management of complex needs.