Gogomadu Cares

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Feedback from people and their relatives was that staff were kind, caring and compassionate. For example, a person told us, “I like living here. I am happier than in my last home.” A relative told us, “[Relative] birthday was celebrated with balloons and a party.”

Our observations of staff in a supported living service reflected feedback from people and relatives. A person told us, “The staff are good – I like them.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People told us they generally felt treated as an individual. For example, a person told us, “I get to do what I want to do here – I don’t have to do anything I don’t like.”

We found there was a lack of information in care plans in relation to people’s religious or cultural beliefs. For example, the religion section in a person’s care plan was blank and there was no further information in the care plan in relation to any religious or cultural support needs.

This meant records required improvement to evidence guidance for staff in meeting any religious or cultural needs people may have.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People and staff provided us with examples of people being supported to be independent and have choice and control over their lives.

For example, since moving into the service a person told us they had started going to the gym, swimming, walks and shopping. The person also told us they had achieved greater independence over their finances with support from the staff team.

This was validated by the person’s family who also told us, “Carers are taking [relative] out, [relative] goes to the gym and swimming. They are meeting [relative’s] needs.”

However, we were not assured that people living at the service had a genuine tenancy which was separate from the provision of care. The provider demonstrated a lack of awareness in relation to the tenancy rights of people living independently in supported living accommodation.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always have the guidance to respond to people’s needs in the moment to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People told us they felt staff were responsive to their individual needs.

It was evidenced from talking to staff that they knew the people they were supporting well and were able to anticipate their needs.

There was insufficient guidance within the individual’s care plan regarding how staff should respond when the person became anxious or distressed. We found that recent incidents involving the individual had not triggered a review of their care plan. As a result, opportunities were missed to reassess needs and to develop or update guidance aimed at effectively supporting the person’s anxieties and emotional well-being.

The provider did not have a positive behaviour support policy when the assessment commenced and although ABC charts were completed by staff, there was no detailed analysis carried out by the provider.

The provider shared a draft policy during the assessment; however, more work was required to define the provider’s positive behaviour support model.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider held annual awards for staff. For example, the kindness, compassion and professionalism award.

The provider had an introduce a friend scheme for staff recommending the employer to others.

The care manager purchased cakes for the team to say thank you on a regular basis.

Although the provider had a wellbeing supervision template, supervision records reviewed did not include discussion of staff wellbeing.

The provider told us the immediate actions they were taking to make changes to the supervision template. For example, employee well-being was the first discussion point on the new supervision template.