• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Has 2 be Happy Care

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

Gatehouse, White Cross Industrial Estate, South Road, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 4XQ (01524) 382764

Provided and run by:
E2Inspire C.I.C.

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about Has 2 be Happy Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about Has 2 be Happy Care, you can give feedback on this service.

18 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service: Has 2 Be Happy Care is a domiciliary care agency which provides personal care to people living in their own homes and supported living services. At the time of our visit 33 people were being supported.

People’s experience of using this service:

The registered provider continued to be committed to developing a holistic service which was person-centred and extremely responsive to people’s needs. Outcomes for people were consistently positive. The service was described as “inspiring,” and, “the best thing since sliced bread.”

Relatives praised the ways in which people’s quality of life had improved since their family members had used the service. We were repeatedly told staff made a difference within people's lives. One relative told us the service had been life changing for their family member.

There was a strong person-centred culture which ran throughout the service. Staff were motivated to make a difference and cared for people in ways that exceeded expectations.

The service was committed to ensuring people’s voices were promoted and listened to. They worked innovatively to ensure people could be heard and understood. People were routinely involved in their own care planning and the development of their service.

People were supported and encouraged to be involved in the design and management of the service. For example, we spoke with a group of people who were involved in recruiting staff for the service. They told us their views were always taken seriously.

Everyone we spoke with said they were extremely happy with the service and would recommend the service to other people.

We were repeatedly told by people and relatives the service was extremely well-led. We found evidence during the inspection process which confirmed this was the case. Leadership within the service was strong and focussed upon striving for and maintaining a person-centred service.

Managers and staff had a clear vision of what was required of a quality service and excelled in providing this throughout the service. Feedback was continuously gained from all parties to develop and improve the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People said they were assured staff were experienced and appropriately trained. Staff worked in partnership with families to develop and provide training to staff.

The registered provider had invested in technology and was in the process of implementing it throughout the service to increase efficiency and further improve outcomes for people.

Staff were described as reliable, kind and caring. We were provided with many examples of when staff had gone the extra mile.

Processes continued to be embedded within the service to promote safety. People and relatives confirmed safety was always considered.

The management team worked proactively to ensure individual concerns were identified and acted upon before they became a complaint. People told us they had never had any reason to complain but were confident any complaints would be dealt with effectively and professionally should they ever need to.

Rating at last inspection: Good (08 September 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned and scheduled inspection.

Follow up: The next scheduled inspection will be in keeping with the overall rating. We will continue to monitor information we receive from and about the service. We may inspect sooner if we receive concerning information about the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

16 June 2016

During a routine inspection

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.