- Homecare service
Gogomadu Cares
We served a warning notice on Gogomadu Care Limited on 6 July 2026 for failing to meet the regulations in relation to good governance at Gogomadu Cares.
Assessment report published 17 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 28 May 2026 – 16 June 2026.
This was a fully comprehensive assessment carried out in response to concerns we had about the service.
Gogomadu Cares is a supported living service providing personal care for people living in their own homes. Not everyone who used the service received the regulated activity of personal care. Care Quality Commission [CQC] only inspects services where people receive personal care, this is help with tasks related to personal hygiene. At the time of our assessment, the service was supporting one person with personal care.
We expect providers to ensure that people with a learning disability and autistic people receive care that promotes dignity, equality, choice and independence, and that they can access the same high quality services within their communities as everyone else. Right support, right care, right culture is the framework CQC uses when assessing services for people with a learning disability and autistic people, and providers are required to have regard to this guidance in how they design, deliver and evaluate their care.
We assessed the service against the ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people, respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the provider was not consistently upholding these principles.
At the time of the assessment there was a manager registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
We found the oversight of the service was not adequate. Systems were not robust enough to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service being provided to people.Although we did not find evidence of harm, we found shortfalls in relation to incident reporting, medicines management; staff recruitment; delegated healthcare tasks; staff competency checks; risk management; care records; monitoring and audits.
The provider needed to strengthen their governance processes to enable learning, improvement and innovation that reflected current regulation and best practice, including the introduction of an effective service improvement plan.
We shared our feedback in relation to our findings during the assessment. Leaders of the provider were receptive to our feedback and told us throughout the assessment about plans they had to make improvements. We will check on the implementation of these plans at our next assessment.
We identified 3 breaches of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment, good governance and fit and proper persons employed. This service has been rated Requires Improvement overall.
In instances where CQC have decided to take civic or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
The principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ were not consistently met.
Feedback from people and their relatives was positive about staff, who were described as kind, caring and compassionate. One person told us, “I like living here. I am happier than in my last home, I get to do what I want to do here - I don’t have to do anything I don’t like.”
Our observations supported this, with people appearing comfortable and at ease with staff. One person told us, “The staff are good – I like them.”
We saw examples of people being supported to make progress and develop their independence, including accessing the community for activities such as going to the gym, swimming, walking and shopping. However, records did not consistently demonstrate how these outcomes were planned, monitored and achieved.
We were not assured that people living at the service had a genuine tenancy. The provider demonstrated a lack of understanding of tenancy rights within supported living. This meant we could not be assured that people’s rights were being fully upheld in line with the principles of ‘Right support, right care, right culture’.