Gogomadu Cares

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Feedback we received from people and relatives suggested staff and the provider aimed to deliver a person centre service, However, this did not always translate into practice, or people’s care records.

We found there had been no specific supported living training such as the REACH standards of supported living to help people, or the provider deliver a truly person-centred supported living service.

For example, there were house rules that did not reflect person-centred care and the communal living environment lacked the feeling of being a home.

We also found the provider had taken a blanket approach and placed a ‘no vaping’ poster on a person’s bedroom wall although they didn’t smoke or vape.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

We received feedback which indicated that people experienced barriers to effective communication within the service. For example, feedback suggested staff were communicating in languages other than English during their duties.

This practice had the potential to exclude people using the service and other staff members from conversations, which could impact on their understanding of care and support being provided.

Although we were told the care manager was regularly addressing these concerns, we were told this had not led to staff ceasing to communicate in languages other than English.

We raised this with the provider during the assessment who told us this was regularly being addressed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider had an easy read complaints guide available for people, if required.

The provider had a leaflet about their service. However, we were told there was no service user guide or similar document. The HR and administration manager told us further work was planned to develop other easy read materials for people who access the service.

The provider’s Statement of Purpose was not up to date and did not accurately reflect the service being delivered. For example, it included service types such as urgent care services and treatment of disease, disorder or injury (TDDI).

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider had a complaints policy. We were not assured by the effectiveness of the provider’s review of this policy in 2025. For example, this stated the local government ombudsman is registered and regulated by CQC, which is not accurate.

The provider had a record of multiple compliments from people who accessed the service and external professionals for the last 12 months.

The provider carried out a service user satisfaction survey and although the results had been collated there was no evidence of learning as a result of the findings. Further work was required to demonstrate a culture of learning from feedback.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had an on-call policy in place, with access to a manager outside of normal working hours.

The provider showed us their business continuity plan, which confirmed there were some plans in place to minimise disruption to the service in an emergency. It wasn’t clear how to invoke the plan, and there was no evidence of training scenarios being facilitated in line with the annual requirement in the provider’s policy.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Leaders and staff recognised the barriers people with disabilities and complex needs may face, and feedback indicated that people were making positive progress towards their goals. However, further work was needed to ensure these experiences were consistently translated into clearly recorded and measurable outcomes.

Records did not always show how needs, care planning and outcomes were linked, and it was not always clear how staff were supporting people to overcome barriers.

As a result, systems to monitor and demonstrate equitable outcomes were not fully effective, and improvements were required to ensure people consistently experienced equitable care and opportunities.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of our assessment there were no people receiving end of life care.

However, the resuscitation status of people was not documented in all the care records we viewed, this meant there was not adequate guidance for staff in the event of an emergency situation.