St Andrews

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider did not always detect and control environmental risks to support the delivery of safe care.

During our assessment, we identified environmental risks that the provider's monitoring processes had not identified. Two wardrobes had not been secured to the wall, 2 wooden steps leading into the garden felt unstable underfoot and hazardous substances were accessible because they had been placed on top of a locked chemicals cupboard within an unlocked garage. Although we saw no evidence people had experienced harm, these hazards increased the risk of avoidable injury.

The registered manager took immediate action during and following the assessment. They secured the hazardous substances, locked the garage and confirmed the wardrobes had been secured and repairs completed to the garden steps. These actions reduced the identified risks and strengthened the safety of the environment.

The service was otherwise well maintained and adapted to meet people's needs. Fire safety systems, servicing arrangements and emergency equipment had been maintained appropriately. People told us they felt safe living at the service and said they could access communal areas independently. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of environmental safety and maintenance reporting. One member of staff told us, "They are quick to repair."

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The provider did not always assess and manage infection prevention and control risks or identify where improvements were required.

During our assessment, we identified infection prevention and control risks that had not been identified through the provider's monitoring arrangements. An external clinical waste bin was unsecured, and a clinical waste pedal bin was broken and required manual opening. We also found an accessible refrigerator within an unlocked garage contained mouldy food dated April 2026. Additionally, 2 members of staff were wearing long acrylic or painted nails that were not consistent with safe infection prevention and control practice. Although we saw no evidence people had experienced harm, these issues increased the risk of infection.

The registered manager acted immediately by removing the mouldy food, securing the garage, replacing the clinical waste bins, reinforcing infection prevention and control expectations with staff and reviewing associated risk assessments. They also strengthened monitoring arrangements to improve oversight.

The home was visibly clean, free from malodours and staff had access to appropriate handwashing facilities and personal protective equipment. Cleaning schedules had been completed, food stored within the main kitchen was appropriately labelled and monitored and the provider had not recorded any outbreaks of infection during the previous 12 months.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.