The Depperhaugh

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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.

The manager and staff understood the importance of identifying, reporting, and learning from safety concerns and incidents. There were clear and accessible systems in place to enable staff to record and escalate concerns promptly, ensuring that issues could be addressed in a timely manner.

The manager took an active role in reviewing and investigating incidents, ensuring that learning from events was consistently shared with the team, supporting reflective practice and helping staff to develop their skills. This approach fostered a culture of openness, accountability, and continuous improvement.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Systems were in place to support safe pathways and transitions. There were processes to share important information about people’s needs and wishes when people moved from the service. This ensured information was shared effectively, was accurate and that the person felt safe and supported.

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.

People told us they felt comfortable and safe living at The Depperhaugh. A relative told us, “We feel that [family member] is in a safe environment at The Depperhaugh - the staff are attentive to [family member’s] needs and have taken the time to understand their mobility issues, anxiety due to their dementia and likes and dislikes. [Family member] is very high risk of falls and they are very aware of their needs.”

The provider worked collaboratively with the Local Authority, demonstrating transparency and a willingness to engage fully with safeguarding inquiries should they occur.

Staff received regular safeguarding training and understood the action they needed to take if they had a safeguarding concern. One staff member told us, “We have training in safeguarding and know [registered manager’s] door is always open. I know how to report myself as do most carers and I would direct to the number to call. If I was unsure if something was safeguarding, I would phone and check, I have done this in the past.”

The provider did not consistently work collaboratively with people to fully understand and manage risks. This was, in part, due to care plans and risk assessments not always being current and up to date. As a result, staff did not always have the most up to date information to provide care in a way that was consistently safe, supportive, and fully aligned with what mattered most to individuals.

People told us they felt safe living at The Depperhaugh, a relative told us, “[Family member] is safe, staff seem to check on [family member] regularly. [Family member] is always washed and dressed and clean, as is the bed linen and the bedroom clean. The front door is locked, and staff check everyone in and out.” We found,however, where potential risks had been identified, a risk assessment had been completed and a plan of care was in place; however, these were not always up to date and current. Despite these anomalies in recording, there was no evidence that people experienced harm or that care was not being delivered. Staff were highly knowledgeable about people’s needs and were providing day‑to‑day support in line with what people required. The registered manager took immediate action to strengthen risk management systems and address the shortfalls we identified.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

People were cared for in a safe environment which had been adapted and built for use as a care home. Facilities and equipment were well-maintained and supported staff to deliver safe and effective care. The provider had environmental safety assessments in place to identify any potential risks in the service which may have an impact on people or the care staff. Issues requiring action were logged by the registered manager so progress could be tracked.

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.

Feedback about staffing levels at the service was mixed. Most people and relatives told us they felt there were enough staff on duty, and several described staff as responsive however, we also received some feedback that staffing levels could be a challenge. One person said, “If they had 1 more [care staff] a day on duty it would make the difference.”

During our inspection, we observed there were enough staff on shift to spend time with people at frequent episodes during the day. Staff were visible and were quick to intervene if people became upset or distressed, showing concern and giving people adequate time. Staff were not task orientated and were available and interacting with people.

Staff were recruited safely and received the training they needed to support people safely and to ensure they could meet people’s needs. A relative told us, “Staff appear to be well trained and on two occasionswhen we have visited, the company trainer was present and delivering training to staff.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff followed safe infection prevention and control practices in their day-to-day work. This included maintaining good hand hygiene, such as washing hands at appropriate times, and using personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly to minimise the risk of infection spreading. We observed staff applying PPE in line with current guidance and disposing of it safely after use, which reduced the risk of cross infection and helped to protect people, visitors and staff, contributing to a safe and clean environment.

Due to the rural location, the service experienced ongoing challenges with flies; however, the registered manager was proactive in recognising and trying to address this issue. They were taking all reasonable steps to manage and resolve the concern, with measures implemented and monitored to reduce the risk of contamination.

The registered manager carried out regular care and compliance audits that reviewed key aspects of infection prevention and control, including cleanliness, correct use of PPE, and adherence to handwashing and hygiene procedures. Findings from these audits were used to maintain oversight of standards and to identify and act on any areas requiring improvement.

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.

Medicines were managed safely across the service, and people received their medicines as prescribed. People told us they were confident in the staff administering their medicines and described a reliable and reassuring process. A relative told us, “When visiting, the medication is presented to [family member] appropriately and with choice care.”

Medicine administration records were accurate, complete and maintained to a high standard, providing assurance that medicines were managed safely and consistently. Staff followed national guidance and the provider’s policies for the safe receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines, which reduced the risk of errors and ensured people received their prescribed medicines as intended. This included clear labelling, secure storage and routine checks to confirm stock levels were correct.

We observed staff administering medicines in a calm, attentive and safe manner. They remained with people until medicines had been taken and provided reassurance, explanations and support where needed, helping people feel comfortable and confident and ensuring medicines were taken correctly.