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 remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always 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 was that staff were kind, caring and compassionate. A person told us, “My two main carers have been absolutely brilliant, letting me do what I can and helping me as needed. I am grateful to my present carer, we get on and have a laugh.”

Relative feedback validated this. Relatives told us, “As far as I am concerned they go above and beyond their duty, ” and, “There are 3-4 main carers who I have met, and they have good awareness of the triggers that contributed to the falls she has had.”

Other relatives told us, “Carers are kind and caring,” and, “All the carers are nice. They help [relative] in the shower and consider privacy and dignity.”

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 feel they treat me like a person - I would not be able to go out if [they] wasn’t with me.” A relative told us, “Carers are helpful around their main role, for example, they will pick up extra prescriptions.”

However, 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 on care plans was either blank, or there was no further information in the care plan in relation to people’s religion.

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

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had 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, a person told us, “I am helped to get ready, we go on the bus, and I get on first to make it easier for me. I am supported to the craft club. I do like swimming and was going regularly, it helps me relax. At the moment I cannot swim, so we go to bingo.”

This was validated by the person’s family who also told us, “[Relative] likes the carers and they are really good, doing what has been agreed. They make [Relative] make all the decisions. That’s important.”

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. We were not assured that staff always had the guidance to respond to people’s needs in the moment to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People and relatives told us they felt staff were responsive to individual needs. For example, a relative told us, “ I think they would recognise if [relative] was unwell. A while ago they contacted me to say [relative] seemed more confused.” Another relative told us, “I know carers would let me know if [relative] was unwell or seemed different. Carers leave me a note if any issues arise.”

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

However, we found there was insufficient guidance within care plans regarding how staff should respond when the person became anxious or distressed. For example, a person living with dementia’s care plan said, “I can be offensive when I am distressed.” However, there was no further guidance for staff on responding to this.

This meant we could not be assured staff were responding appropriately and following appropriate guidance to support people’s anxieties and emotional well-being.

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, the supervision records we reviewed did not include staff wellbeing discussions.

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.