We carried out a review of the data available to us about Happy Dayz Domiciliary Care Ltd 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 Happy Dayz Domiciliary Care Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
Happy Dayz is a domiciliary care agency providing support and personal care to young adults and children with a range of physical and mental health needs, including autism spectrum disorder, physical disabilities, learning disabilities and sensory impairment. The service supports young people and children living at home with their family. The service has recently updated their care services, so they could also provide care for older people. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting four children or young people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The registered manager had made improvements to the safety of the service to ensure staff had the skills and competence to carry out their role. Relatives of the people supported by the service told us people were safely cared for by competent staff. Staff were recruited safely however, we have made a recommendation about the application of the Equality Act (2010) in recruitment processes. Staff understood their responsibility to safeguard people from abuse and the service supported people to understand risks to their safety and wellbeing. Risk assessments were in place which guided staff on safe practice in meeting people’s needs. Staff used protective equipment to prevent the spread of infections.
The registered manager had made improvements to the training and induction of staff. Training was completed within timescales to support staff to care for people safely and effectively. This included training to meet the specific needs of the people supported. Relatives told us staff provided appropriate support with eating and drinking. The service worked with relatives and other agencies to ensure people’s needs were met. Needs assessments were carried out to develop person centred plans for care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People told us staff were kind and caring. People were involved in decisions about their care including a choice of the staff who supported them. Staff knew how to provide respectful and dignified care and relatives confirmed this was carried out in practice.
Care plans were person centred and developed with people and their relatives. The service used a range of methods to meet the communication needs of the people they supported. No complaints had been received by the service and relatives told us their concerns were acted on promptly and to their satisfaction by the registered manager. No one was receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection. Guidance was available for staff to follow, should this be required.
Relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and their leadership of the service. Improvements had been made to the service since our previous inspection, in line with the action plan submitted by the registered manager at that time. The registered manager was not aware of the Duty of Candour and we have made a recommendation about this. Whilst the regulations had been met, we noted the registered manager needed to improve their knowledge of some regulatory requirements, which we have referred to in this report. We received very positive feedback about the service from the relatives we spoke with, consistent with feedback received by the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 10 August 2018) and there were two breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Happy Dayz on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
A registered manager was in place who was also the provider of the service. 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. We have referred to the responsible registered person as the registered manager throughout this report.
Parents of the children and young people supported by the service we spoke with told us the staff provided safe care and support. However, we found improvements were required in the recording and management of risks to people. Documented risk assessments required more detail to provide clear guidance for staff. Guidance for staff on people's moving and handling needs was not always in place. Not all staff had completed training or competency checks in moving and handling and administering medication although they supported people with these needs. Whilst we did not find that people had experienced any harm, this could place people at risk of inappropriate and unsafe care and treatment.
The governance arrangements had not been effective in managing risks and regulatory requirements. The concerns we found had not been identified by the registered manager.
Not all staff new to care had completed induction training. Not all staff had completed training to meet people’s assessed needs.
Checks were carried out to protect people from the employment of unsuitable staff. However, applicants were only required to give 10 years employment history which is not in line with regulatory requirements. The registered manager acted to amend this process so that prospective staff gave a full employment history with an explanation for any gaps in employment. This helps to ensure staff are recruited as safely as possible.
The system in place to gather feedback from people using the service, their families and staff had not been effective. Although people told us they had been asked about the quality of the service this had not resulted in any analysis or improvements to the service. Feedback we received from people and staff included comments which suggested some improvements could be made, for example in training and the support of new staff and in contact and seeking feedback from parents. We have made a recommendation about this.
There were sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs for the packages of care the registered manager delivered. People were usually supported by the same staff member which provided a good level of consistency and continuity for the young people and their families.
Staff supported people safely with their eating and drinking needs and monitored any changes to people’s health and wellbeing.
Young people over the age of 16 were supported to have choice and control and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies in the service support this practice. Not all the relevant staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act (2005).
Young people’s needs were assessed prior to care being delivered and staff were matched to young people to promote effective support and positive outcomes.
People we spoke with told us the service was caring. Staff we spoke with knew about the young people they supported and told us how they supported them in line with their preferences. People’s communication needs were known and met and staff involved young people in choice and decisions about their day to day care as far as they were able. Parents confirmed staff provided respectful and considerate care.
People spoke positively about the care provided and told us staff were responsive to people’s needs. Care plans included important information for staff to know about the person to provide person-centred care.
No complaints had been received by the service. Parents we spoke with told us they would feel able to raise complaints with the registered manager and confident they would be responded to.
The service was not supporting anyone at the end of their life at the time of our inspection.
The registered manager promoted a positive culture and staff understood the behaviours and values expected of them. Action was taken in response to concerns raised about staff performance issues.
This service was registered with the CQC on 8 June 2015. This was the first inspection of this service. We found two breaches of the Regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.