You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 8 September 2016

This announced inspection took place on 16 and 23 June 2016.

Has 2 be Happy Care is a small domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to adults with a disability living in Lancaster, Morecambe and surrounding districts. The agency provides a range of person centred services and domiciliary care to people living in their own homes. They also manage a supported living scheme for three people. The agency helps with personal care, domestic tasks and supports people to enjoy leisure activities.

At the time of inspection there were ten people who used the service. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure someone would be in.

The service was registered with the Care Quality Commission in 2014 and started delivering services to people in July 2015. This was the first inspection of the service. The service manages one supported living house; this was previously managed by another registered provider.

There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service told us they were happy with the service they received. Relatives and professionals spoke very positively about the quality of service provision on offer. They praised the responsiveness of the service and the way in which person centred supports were developed and maintained. Staff had high expectations for the people they supported encouraging them to develop to the best of their ability.

There was a clear focus on developing a positive culture which in turn created positive outcomes for people who used the service. We were told by relatives of people who used the service that people were nurtured and developed and lives were positively enhanced by the service provider. Professionals told us the registered provider went above and beyond what was expected from service providers in order to achieve positive outcomes.

The service placed an emphasis upon citizenship and community participation. Staff were committed to making a difference and combatting social isolation. People were encouraged and supported to have meaning and purpose in their life as a means to increase their well-being and autonomy.

People were supported to attend various community groups according to their preferred wishes and hobbies. Staff enabled people to use their gifts and talents to develop their self-esteem and independence.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored and concerns regarding people’s health were fed back to relevant health professionals or the person’s relatives so action could be taken. Relatives told us the health of people who used the services had improved as a consequence of the care provided.

People who used the service and relatives told us staff were caring and always willing to go above and beyond their duties. People were comfortable in the presence of staff. We observed people laughing and joking with staff.

There was an exuberant atmosphere throughout the service and people spoke positively about the support provided. Staff were repeatedly described as thoughtful and committed.

Professionals, relatives and staff spoke highly about the management team of the service and the effectiveness of the care provided. The service was consistently described as well led.

People were supported to meet their nutritional needs. Independence and choice was promoted wherever possible. Records were kept when support had been provided with eating and drinking. Health professionals were consulted with when people required support with eating and drinking. People and relatives told us the registered provider promoted positive outcomes in this area.

People told us staffing levels were conducive to meet their needs. Staff always had time to carry out their duties and always stayed for the allocated time.

Arrangements were in place to protect people from risk of abuse. People told us they felt safe and secure. Staff had knowledge of safeguarding procedures and were aware of their responsibilities for reporting any concerns.

Systems were in place for recruiting staff. However checks were not consistently applied to ensure staff were correctly vetted before commencing employment. We have made a recommendation about this.

Suitable arrangements were in place for managing and administering medicines.

Staff told us training was provided to enable them to carry out their tasks proficiently and they were supported in their role by the management team. New employees praised the training and support given at the outset of employment.

The registered manager had a complaints policy in place which gave clear instruction on how to manage complaints. They told us they had received no formal complaints to date. Work had been undertaken to ensure the complaints procedure was accessible and appropriate.

The registered manager told us they carried out informal audits upon quality but had not kept any records to show this has taken place. They agreed to document any future feedback.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 8 September 2016

The service was sometimes safe.

Relatives told us staff were reliable and the registered provider has systems in place to promote safety of people.

Processes were in place to protect people from abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in responding to abuse.

When people required support with medicines suitable arrangements were in place to manage these.

The provider had recruitment procedures in place but did not consistently apply these to ensure staff recruited were of suitable character.



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was effective.

Nutritional and health needs were assessed and managed by the registered provider and people experienced positive outcomes.

Staff had access to training to meet the individual needs of people they supported.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the relevance to their work.



Updated 8 September 2016

Staff were caring.

People were consistently positive about the caring nature displayed by staff.

Staff had a good understanding of each person in order to deliver person centred care. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been discussed so staff could deliver personalised care.

Relatives told us people were treated with patience, warmth and compassion and respected people’s rights to privacy, dignity and independence.



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was very responsive.

People were involved in making decisions about what was important to them. There was an emphasis on empowering people, developing independence and enabling people to have positive outcomes within their life.

The registered provider actively addressed isolation and encouraged people to develop community networks and relationships through community participation.

People’s care needs were kept under review and staff responded quickly when people’s needs changed. External professionals were consulted with when individual’s needs changed.

The registered provider had a complaints system in place. Staff were aware of procedures to follow if someone complained.



Updated 8 September 2016

The service was well led.

Relative’s, professionals and staff spoke highly about the registered manager and described the service as well managed.

Regular communication took place between the management team, staff and people who used the service as a means to improve service delivery.

The registered provider engaged with other professionals to critically evaluate the service provision as a means to further develop the service.