• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Gogomadu Cares Nottingham Office

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

Mapperley Business Centre, 910 Woodborough Road, Nottingham, NG3 5QR 07928 667381

Provided and run by:
Gogomadu Care Limited

Important:

We issued an Urgent Notice of Decision on Gogomadu Care Limited on 1 May 2026 for failing to provide safe care and treatment and good governance to people at Gogomadu Cares Nottingham Office.

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Our current view of the service

Inadequate

Updated 19 February 2026

Date of assessment: 1 April 2026 to 28 April 2026.

Gogomadu Cares Nottingham Office is a home care service providing support to younger adults, with physical disabilities. At the time of our assessment 1 person was receiving the regulated activity of personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. This was a comprehensive assessment of all quality statements as this service had not been assessed before.

We assessed the service against ‘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. At the time of the assessment, the service was not supporting any autistic people or people with a learning disability, but we found the provider did not always deliver care in line with those standards.

Although the person had care plans and risk assessments in place, these lacked clear, consistent, up to date guidance for staff regarding the person’s care and information about health conditions, risks to their safety, and end of life care planning. Information regarding the person’s life histories and details on things important to them were not clearly recorded. These concerns presented a barrier to people receiving safe, effective, and responsive care from staff in the service and delayed appropriate care from other health professionals in an emergency.

Recruitment practices were not robust which put people at risk of being supported by staff who were not suitable. Records showed staff had out-of-date training, and some had not completed essential training in key areas required to keep people safe. Care plans, daily notes and MAR charts did not accurately align with all prescribed medicines, including reason for use and safety considerations. We found examples of medication errors where the incorrect dose had been administered, which had not been identified and actioned by the provider. Safeguarding incidents had not been identified and reported to the appropriate authorities to keep the person safe.

Quality assurance processes were ineffective. Audits did not identify important shortfalls in care quality or safety, and risks were neither fully assessed nor adequately managed. Strategic priorities for improvement were unclear. This demonstrated a breakdown in the feedback and improvement cycle and limited the service’s ability to make meaningful, sustained progress.

During this assessment we found significant shortfalls in the way the service was managed. We identified concerns relating to safe care and treatment, management of medicines, management of risks, delegated healthcare tasks, recruitment of staff, staffing, management of the service and governance systems. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment, good governance and fit and proper persons employed. We asked the provider to make urgent and significant improvements in the areas of concern.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.

People's experience of the service

Updated 19 February 2026

We gathered feedback from the person who uses the service and a family member. The feedback from them was mixed about the service and reflected feedback gathered from professionals.

Feedback suggested that consent was always sought before giving care and privacy and dignity were a strength at the service. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns.

We were also told that staff were not always kind and respectful and care was not always proactive with response times from 2 to 40 minutes for support when staff should have been available for immediate care and the care plan was not always followed.