Are You Really Tailoring Support, or Just Offering Options?

November 12, 2025

Blog 7 of 7: This article is part of our 7-part series on tailoring support in person-centred care. Scroll down to explore links to the full series.

“We offer a range of options.” It sounds person-centred — but is it really? Giving people a menu of choices is useful, yet if those choices weren’t shaped by what matters to that person, you’re not tailoring support — you’re just offering it.

Commissioners and inspectors want to see that people are involved in creating support, not simply choosing from it. That’s the core difference between offering options and delivering personalised, co-produced planning. This distinction often separates average-scoring bids from award-winning ones in learning-disability tenders and domiciliary-care bids, where evaluators explicitly score for lived experience and collaboration.

🤝 Tailoring Means Co-Creation

Real personalisation begins before any formal support starts. It starts in conversation — listening, exploring motivations, and understanding context. True co-creation means:

Designing morning routines around the person’s energy levels, not staff rotas.
Building weekly plans that flex for sensory preferences or cultural routines.
Creating meaningful activity options that link directly to life goals, not just what’s available locally.
Adapting support approaches over time as confidence or capacity grows.

When a commissioner or inspector reads a plan written this way, they can “hear” the person’s voice. The document feels alive, not administrative. That is precisely what differentiates person-centred evidence in home-care tenders and complex-care bids.

🧭 The Illusion of Choice

Many services unintentionally fall into what we might call “the illusion of choice.” People can pick from several pre-set options — mealtime, activity, or staff member — but none of those options were created with them. The result: compliance on paper, frustration in practice.

True choice means shaping what’s on the table in the first place. It’s the difference between: “Would you like to go to the park or the café?” and “Where would you like to go today — or is there something new you’d like to try?”

The first shows efficiency. The second shows empowerment.

💬 Why This Matters in Tenders and Inspections

Commissioners under the Procurement Act 2023 now assess “Most Advantageous Tender” (MAT) value. That includes quality, outcomes, and social value — all of which rely on genuine engagement. Copy-and-paste responses about “promoting choice” no longer suffice. Evaluators want:

Evidence that people influence support design and review.
Clear examples of co-production improving outcomes or reducing risk.
Language that sounds lived-in — natural, human, specific.

When you can demonstrate this level of involvement, your bid moves from policy-driven to story-driven — and stories win marks.

📑 What to Show in Bids, QA, and Reviews

In your responses or audit evidence, include examples that prove co-creation:

👂 Quotes from people supported describing how they shaped routines or goals.
🧩 Adjustments made after feedback (e.g. flexible shift changes, environment tweaks).
📈 Outcomes tracked after co-produced planning (confidence gains, fewer incidents, new skills).
📷 Visual tools such as decision boards, timelines, or “good-day/bad-day” charts co-designed with the person.

When writing, avoid jargon. Replace “service user feedback informs care planning” with “Sarah asked to swap her afternoon walk for an evening gym session — her anxiety scores dropped 20% within a month.” It’s relatable, credible, and scorable.

🧩 Building Choice into Everyday Support

Embedding co-creation isn’t about rewriting every process; it’s about small, systematic habits:

💭 Begin every shift with “What matters today?” not “What’s on the schedule?”
📅 Review weekly routines with the person, not just for them.
💬 Capture micro-decisions — clothing, meals, rest times — to evidence daily autonomy.
📣 Include people in reviewing outcomes data and setting next goals.

This approach aligns perfectly with CQC’s new Single Assessment Framework, which values “Voice, Choice & Control” as an outcome domain. It’s also the type of evidence that Contract Continuity & Outcomes Evidence Support can transform into renewal-ready dashboards and narrative proof.

🔄 From Feedback to Flexibility

Co-created support only stays authentic if it evolves. A plan written collaboratively two years ago but never reviewed loses credibility fast. Demonstrate how your service listens and adapts:

📋 Quarterly reviews led by the person — they set the agenda.
🧠 Staff reflections logged after significant feedback or life events.
🧾 Visual tracking (traffic-light or emoji charts) to help people rate satisfaction.
🤝 Rapid response loops where feedback leads to change within days, not months.

Document these examples and cite them in tenders as “evidence of responsiveness.” Commissioners love seeing systems that turn feedback into measurable improvement — it signals governance strength as well as compassion.

🌍 Culture, Confidence, and Co-Production

Embedding co-creation requires culture change. Staff must feel trusted to adapt, not punished for deviation. Leaders should model curiosity, not compliance. Questions like:

“Whose idea was this plan update?”
“How does this routine reflect what matters most to the person?”
“What have we learned from their feedback this month?”

These prompts keep everyone focused on outcomes, not paperwork. Our Strategic Reviews & Positioning Support helps organisations audit this alignment — connecting frontline voice, leadership tone, and commissioner confidence.

📊 Turning Co-Creation into Measurable Value

Co-produced approaches aren’t just ethical — they’re economical. When people help design their own support, outcomes improve and dependency often reduces. Commissioners increasingly link this to “best-value” scoring:

📈 30% reduction in missed visits after co-designed rota flexibility.
💬 40% increase in satisfaction ratings where people choose staff pairings.
⚖️ Measurable improvements in wellbeing and reduced escalation costs.

These are precisely the metrics evaluators highlight in MAT scoring matrices under “effectiveness,” “innovation,” and “value for money.” Our Bid Proofreading & Compliance Checks ensure your narrative frames these numbers persuasively.

💡 Practical Phrases for Bids and Inspections

Replace vague statements with language that shows partnership and progression:

❌ “We offer various activities for people to choose from.” ✅ “People co-design weekly timetables using our choice boards and local-link apps.”
❌ “We adapt to changing needs.” ✅ “After David’s fatigue increased, he helped rewrite his plan to include later starts and short rests.”
❌ “We involve families.” ✅ “Families join quarterly review cafés where they co-set goals with staff and the person.”

Writing like this demonstrates co-production and impact in the same sentence — and that’s exactly what marks schemes reward.

🧰 Bringing It All Together

Tailoring support isn’t about volume of choice; it’s about depth of collaboration. Every conversation, plan, and reflection is an opportunity to ask: “Is this built with the person, or just around them?”

Providers who embed this thinking across supervision, recruitment, and performance reviews stand out across bids, CQC evidence, and contract renewals. It becomes part of organisational DNA — not just documentation.

For practical frameworks to embed this consistently, explore:

📚 Bid Library & Process Design — build reusable, person-centred templates.
📄 Editable Method Statements — align real practice with tender wording.
🎯 Outcomes Evidence Support — translate results into renewal-ready data.

📚 Explore the Full 7-Part Series on Tailoring Support in Person-Centred Care

Person-centred care thrives on curiosity, collaboration, and courage. Offering options is good — but co-creating them is transformational. That’s how you build trust, demonstrate outcomes, and win tenders with integrity.