Co-Producing Easy Read Materials with People Who Use Learning Disability Services

Co-producing Easy Read materials in learning disability services means involving people who use services in shaping information that is meant for them. Easy Read should not be created only by managers, designers or staff who assume what people will understand. It should be tested, adapted and improved with the people who need to use it.

Strong providers connect co-production with communication and accessibility in learning disability support and embed it within learning disability service pathways and support models. This matters because accessible information should support real understanding, choice and involvement, not simply meet a document requirement.

Concept explained clearly

Co-producing Easy Read means people help decide what information is needed, what words are clear, which images make sense, how much information should appear on each page and how the material should be used. Some people may give feedback verbally. Others may show understanding through choice, rejection, hesitation, repeated selection, facial expression, object use or behaviour.

The aim is not to make every person responsible for document design. The aim is to make sure Easy Read materials are grounded in real communication, real routines and real understanding.

Why it matters in real services

Easy Read can look good but still fail. Images may be too generic, wording may still be abstract, the layout may be too busy, or the person may not connect the document with the real decision being made.

Providers should be able to evidence that Easy Read materials have been tested with people and changed where feedback showed confusion or limited understanding.

What good looks like

Good co-production is practical and proportionate. Staff involve people early, test materials in short sessions, record responses clearly and make changes based on evidence.

Strong services demonstrate a clear line of sight from co-production to improved understanding, better involvement and more meaningful outcomes.

Operational Example 1: Co-producing an Easy Read complaints guide

Context: A provider had an Easy Read complaints guide, but people rarely used it. Staff were unsure whether people understood what a complaint was or how to raise one.

Support approach: The provider worked with a small group of people using the service to review the guide and make it more practical.

Five practical steps:

1. Staff identified which parts of the complaints process people found unclear.
2. The group reviewed the words, images and examples in short sessions.
3. People selected images that made sense to them and rejected confusing ones.
4. The guide was rewritten using real service examples and clearer steps.
5. Managers reviewed whether people used the guide or asked more questions afterwards.

Day-to-day delivery detail: People did not connect the word “complaint” with everyday problems. Staff added examples such as “I do not like my food”, “I am worried about staff” and “I want something to change”. Photos of familiar managers replaced generic office images.

How effectiveness was evidenced: More people used the guide during keyworker sessions. Records showed clearer concerns being raised, and the provider evidenced that the document had changed because of people’s feedback.

Deepening co-production through total communication

Co-production should reflect total communication beyond spoken language. Some people will not say whether an Easy Read document works, but they may show it through attention, rejection, repeated selection, confusion, distress or confidence using it.

This means staff must observe carefully and avoid assuming silence means agreement. Testing Easy Read materials should include enough time, familiar support and different ways for people to respond.

Operational Example 2: Co-producing information about a service move

Context: A person was moving from residential care to supported living. Staff prepared an Easy Read moving plan, but the first version used too many unfamiliar images and increased anxiety.

Support approach: The provider co-produced a revised plan with the person, family and support staff, using real photos and a slower introduction process.

Five practical steps:

1. Staff tested the first version and recorded which pages caused uncertainty.
2. The person selected preferred photos of the new home, bedroom and garden.
3. Family helped identify familiar objects that should appear in the plan.
4. The plan was broken into short sections covering visit, stay, move and settle.
5. The team reviewed anxiety, questions and confidence over several weeks.

Day-to-day delivery detail: The person repeatedly looked at the bedroom photo but pushed away the kitchen image. Staff arranged an extra visit focused only on the kitchen and added a photo of the person’s own mug in the cupboard.

How effectiveness was evidenced: The person showed less anxiety during later visits and began choosing the new garden photo during preparation sessions. The transition plan recorded how co-produced Easy Read information supported adjustment.

Systems, workforce and consistency

Co-production needs staff who know how to support people to give feedback. Staff should understand that feedback may be visual, behavioural, sensory or relational, not only verbal.

Supervision should check whether staff record how people respond to materials and whether changes are made. Handovers should explain when Easy Read testing has started, what the person understood and what still needs follow-up.

Operational Example 3: Co-producing health information

Context: A service created Easy Read health information for flu vaccination, but several people appeared unsure or anxious when the material was shown.

Support approach: The provider reviewed the material with people using the service, applying principles from accessible information standards in learning disability services.

Five practical steps:

1. Staff identified which words and images people did not understand.
2. People were shown alternative images and supported to choose clearer ones.
3. The information was shortened and split into preparation, appointment and aftercare.
4. Staff tested the revised version before appointments.
5. Vaccination attendance, anxiety and follow-up understanding were reviewed.

Day-to-day delivery detail: People understood a photo of the local clinic better than a generic nurse image. Staff added a “small scratch”, “plaster” and “finished” sequence because people wanted to know when the appointment would end.

How effectiveness was evidenced: Appointment preparation became calmer, and more people attended with reasonable adjustments in place. Records showed how feedback changed the Easy Read material and improved health access.

Governance and evidence

The audit trail may include draft versions, feedback notes, observation records, involvement evidence, updated materials, staff supervision, review minutes and outcome data.

Data may show improved use of materials, clearer choices, fewer repeated questions, reduced anxiety, better appointment attendance or stronger review participation. Qualitative evidence should explain what people changed and why those changes mattered.

Commissioner and CQC expectations

Commissioners expect providers to evidence meaningful involvement and accessible communication. Co-produced Easy Read materials help show that people shape the information used in their support.

CQC expects person-centred care, dignity, involvement, effective communication and good governance. Inspectors may look at whether accessible information is meaningful to people and whether services learn from how people respond to it.

Common pitfalls

• Calling a document co-produced when people only saw the final version.
• Using feedback sessions that are too long or too abstract.
• Ignoring non-verbal signs of confusion or rejection.
• Keeping generic images when people need familiar photos.
• Failing to record how feedback changed the material.
• Producing Easy Read documents without checking whether they improve outcomes.

Conclusion

Co-produced Easy Read materials are more likely to be understood, trusted and used. Strong providers demonstrate that people influence the words, images, layout and timing of accessible information. When co-production is evidenced well, Easy Read becomes a practical tool for involvement rather than a document created on behalf of people.

---