CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Happy Days
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, staffing, medicines and infection-control arrangements. However, personal emergency evacuation plans were missing during the visit, and not all staff COVID-19 test results were recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission, and staff had suitable training and supervision. Food, healthcare, communication and day-to-day choices were supported well, although a best-interest decision had not initially been recorded for restrictions.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff understood their communication needs and supported independence, but satisfaction questionnaires had not yet been introduced.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and updated when people's needs changed. People were supported to maintain relationships, follow their interests, attend education and take part in community activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture and regular quality checks. A planned external audit had not yet started, and formal staff meetings had not yet been introduced, although other systems were used to share information.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Happy Days is rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records and emergency planning needing improvement.
This was the first inspection since the home registered in August 2021. It was unannounced and took place on 22 February and 3 March 2022. One inspector spoke with both residents, staff, the manager and a relative, and checked care files, medicines, staff records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received their medicines, had enough staff and received personalised support. Staff knew people well, supported their communication, interests and community activities, and treated them with dignity.
There were some shortfalls. Personal emergency evacuation plans and an emergency grab bag were not ready during the inspection. Staff COVID-19 test results were not always recorded, and some best-interest and feedback arrangements were still being put in place. The manager said several of these issues were completed or ordered after the inspection.
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and tailored support to their individual needs, preferences and communication styles.
“People received personalised support and staff knew people very well.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that staff protected people's dignity and encouraged them to do things for themselves.
“People were treated with care and kindness. Staff treated people with respect and dignity.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to enjoy hobbies, attend education and take part in activities in the local community.
“People were supported to pursue their interests and hobbies and to participate in their local community.” from the report
Communication support
Staff understood different ways of communicating and used aids such as symbols, signs, speech and objects of reference.
“Staff understood people's different communication needs and how to communicate with them in an effective and proactive way.” from the report
Emergency evacuation planning
seriousPersonal emergency evacuation plans for both residents were missing during the inspection, and there was no emergency grab bag. The manager later confirmed the plans were completed and a bag was ordered.
“Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans [PEEP] for both people had not been completed.” from the report
COVID-19 test records
needs fixingThe home was carrying out testing, but it did not always record the results for all staff.
“However, improvements were required to ensure all staff employed at Happy Days recorded the outcome of their test results.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingRestrictions were recorded, but a best-interest decision had not been documented at the time. The manager later confirmed that the paperwork had been completed.
“A best interest decision had not been recorded where restrictions were imposed.” from the report
Feedback arrangements
minorSatisfaction questionnaires for residents and people acting for them had not yet been put in place.
“The registered manager confirmed satisfaction questionnaires had yet to be put in place for people using the service and those acting on their behalf.” from the report
Planned external audit
minorAn external organisation had been appointed to audit the home, but the audit had not yet started or been completed.
“The registered manager confirmed this was planned but had not yet been initiated and completed.” from the report
- 01Have both residents' Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans now been completed, and is the emergency grab bag available?
- 02How do you make sure every staff member's COVID-19 test result is recorded?
- 03Where restrictions are used, how do you record the required best-interest decision?
- 04Have satisfaction questionnaires now been introduced for residents and their representatives?
- 05Has the planned external quality audit taken place, and what did it find?
This was the home's first unannounced inspection and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Happy Days
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 August 2021.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.