Briar House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to good governance at the service.

This service scored 61 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

Staff worked together to deliver person‑centred care and created a warm and welcoming environment, where they knew them as individuals. The registered manager maintained a visible presence within the service.

The provider had taken over the running of the service in 2025, we received positive feedback from staff, relatives and health professionals on improvements that had been made since. One person told us, “There have been great improvements, everyone is more settled now and happier.”

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience to lead effectively.

Although we had received positive feedback on improvements to the service since the change in provider and having a permanent manager in place we found several concerns due to lack managerial oversight.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the provider.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff said that they felt able to share their views and raise any concerns they may have. One staff member told us, "I would go straight to the team leader or manager if I had concerns and they would listen.”

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The service had a diverse workforce and all the staff we spoke with told us they felt valued, respected and well supported by the registered manager and the provider.

Staff received training in equality and diversity. This meant staff had an understanding about discrimination and anti-discriminatory practice.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance.

We found that systems were in place to monitor the service, audits were completed on a regular basis; however, they had not always identified areas of concern that was found during the inspection process.

We found concerns relating to the environment, mental capacity assessments and consent.

Improvements were required in governance of the service to ensure it was robust and effective in day-to-day quality assurance. Audit processes needed strengthening to help the management team identify problems and the actions required. We looked at a range of audits, and these did not always identify our findings during this inspection.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. We saw evidence of partnership working with a wide variety of health care partners including GP's and SALT team.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Evidence was seen that lessons had been shared from events that had happened outside of the service, such as incidents at other care homes. However, not all lessons learnt from inside the home were effectively shared to drive improvement.

The service was responsive to address some of the concerns that were found during the inspection. Some concerns were rectified immediately. For other concerns additional or strengthened auditing processes need to be implemented to ensure that improvements will be made.