Briarfield

Updated 8 June 2026

Date of assessment: 23 June to 3 July 2026.
Briarfield is a care home providing personal care and accommodation for up to 7 adults with a learning disability and autistic people. At the time of our assessment, 7 people were using the service, and 6 people were receiving the regulated activity of personal care.
During this announced assessment, we assessed all the quality statements under all key questions; Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led.
We undertook this responsive assessment to follow up concerns we had received in relation to staffing, risk management and diabetes management. At the last rated inspection in 2017 the home was rated good. At this inspection we found standards had declined and the home was now in breach of legal regulations for consent, safe care and treatment, and good governance.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed autistic people and people with a learning disability respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.
Improvements were needed to ensure people consistently received safe, effective and person-centred care. Risks were not always identified, assessed or managed appropriately, and care plans and risk assessments did not always reflect known or emerging risks. Behavioural incidents were not always recognised, recorded or reviewed, which meant opportunities to learn from events and reduce the likelihood of recurrence were sometimes missed.
The environment was not always safe or well maintained, and systems had not effectively identified or addressed concerns relating to fire safety, infection prevention and control, environmental risks and maintenance of the premises. These issues placed people at risk of receiving unsafe care and resulted in a breach of regulation.
People's rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were not always fully protected. Consent processes were not consistently applied, and mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not always in place or completed in line with legislation. Records did not consistently demonstrate how people were involved in decisions about their care, support and future plans. Opportunities to identify and support people to achieve their goals, aspirations and desired outcomes were not always evident. These concerns resulted in a breach of regulation.
Governance and quality assurance systems were not effective. Audits and oversight processes had not identified or addressed a range of concerns relating to people's safety, care planning, risk management, infection prevention and control, medicines, the environment and compliance with legal requirements. As a result, leaders could not always be assured that risks were identified and acted upon or that people consistently received safe, high-quality care. These widespread and sustained governance failures resulted in a breach of regulation.
However, people were supported by staff who were kind, caring and knew them well. We observed warm and respectful interactions throughout the assessment, and people appeared relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff. Relatives and professionals spoke positively about the care provided and described staff as compassionate, proactive and committed to supporting people's health and wellbeing. The provider worked effectively with a range of healthcare professionals and partner organisations to help ensure people received coordinated care and support. People were supported to access healthcare services, community activities and opportunities that were important to them.
The registered manager was visible and demonstrated a good understanding of the people living at the service. Staff and professionals were generally positive about their commitment to supporting people. The provider was receptive to feedback throughout the assessment and took action in response to some concerns we identified, including strengthening management support arrangements and beginning to address environmental issues.
Overall, people were supported by caring staff who were committed to their wellbeing, and there were examples of strong partnership working, positive health outcomes and effective engagement with external professionals. However, improvements were needed to governance, oversight, consent processes, involving people, risk management and the safety of the environment to ensure people consistently received safe, effective and person-centred care and achieved outcomes that were important to them.
We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
 

Updated 8 June 2026

People were supported by staff who knew them well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Throughout our assessment, we observed warm and caring interactions between people and staff. People appeared relaxed and comfortable in staff's presence, and relatives consistently described the care provided in positive terms. One relative told us, “Care is very very good, I’ve never had a complaint up to now, all very good and helpful.”
Relatives told us they felt people were safe and well cared for. One relative said, “[Person] gets very good care, I’m really happy with the place.” Another told us, “[Person] has had a few serious health issues and trips to hospital as an inpatient and outpatient, they take really good care of [person].” Relatives also described staff going "above and beyond" to support people during hospital admissions and to ensure they had appropriate advocacy when attending healthcare appointments.
People were supported to access healthcare services and external professionals when needed. Relatives spoke positively about staff recognising changes in people's health and seeking medical advice promptly. Professionals also spoke positively about the service's commitment to advocating for people and helping them access healthcare.
People were supported to make choices in their daily lives and access activities they enjoyed. Relatives told us people were supported to go swimming, go out for meals and spend time outside the home. One relative told us, “They take [person] swimming twice a week, up to now no complaints.” Another said, “[Person goes out in the van and swimming which [person] loves to do.”
However, people were not always fully involved in planning and reviewing their care. Records did not consistently demonstrate how people's views, goals and aspirations had shaped the support they received. Some relatives told us they were regularly informed about changes in their family member's care, while others told us they had not seen their relative's care plan for some time.
We also identified areas where people's experiences could be improved. Opportunities to help people work towards personal goals and aspirations were not always clearly identified or reviewed. It was not always evident how people were encouraged to develop new skills, increase their independence or plan for their future. Although people had access to activities and community opportunities, records did not always demonstrate how these were linked to outcomes that were important to them.
Overall, people and their relatives spoke positively about the service and the support provided by staff. People benefited from caring relationships, good access to healthcare and support to participate in community activities. However, improvements were needed to ensure people were consistently involved in decisions about their care, their goals and future plans, and to ensure the provider could demonstrate how people's outcomes, aspirations and experiences were being supported and reviewed.