Co-Production and Strengths-Based Planning for Older People and Ageing Well
Co-production is often referenced in older people’s services but inconsistently applied in practice. Too often, care plans are written about people rather than with them, focusing on deficits, risks and service convenience rather than strengths, preferences and lived experience. For ageing well services, this approach undermines dignity, engagement and long-term outcomes.
This article explores how co-production and strengths-based planning operate together within person-centred planning for older people. It builds on established principles (Person-Centred Planning) and strengths-led models (Strengths-Based Approaches), translating them into practical, inspectable delivery.
What co-production means in older people’s services
Co-production means sharing power. In ageing well services, this involves recognising older people as experts in their own lives and ensuring their views shape decisions, not simply inform them.
Effective co-production typically includes:
- Planning conversations held in accessible formats and environments
- Time given for reflection rather than rushed assessments
- Active involvement of families, advocates or carers where appropriate
- Clear recording of what the person said, wanted, or declined
Strengths-based planning complements this by starting with abilities, routines, relationships and coping strategies, rather than needs and risks alone.
Common barriers to meaningful co-production
Services often struggle with co-production due to:
- Time pressures leading to staff-led decisions
- Assumptions about capacity linked to age or diagnosis
- Over-reliance on family views without triangulation
- Care planning templates that prioritise deficits
These barriers can be addressed through training, supervision and better planning systems.
Embedding strengths-based co-production into planning
High-quality plans reflect three core strengths-based questions:
- What matters most to this person day to day?
- What are they already doing well or with minimal support?
- What relationships, routines or environments support wellbeing?
Plans should explicitly link strengths to support strategies, ensuring staff build on what already works.
Operational examples
Example 1: Reframing support through strengths
Context: An older person was described primarily through mobility limitations and health conditions, with minimal reference to interests or routines.
Support approach: A co-produced review explored lifelong routines, hobbies and coping strategies, identifying gardening and social contact as central to wellbeing.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Support plans prioritise morning routines, outdoor access and social calls, with health tasks integrated rather than dominant.
Evidence of effectiveness: Reduced withdrawal, improved mood and positive feedback from the person and family.
Example 2: Shared decision-making with fluctuating capacity
Context: The person’s capacity fluctuated, leading staff to default to family-led decisions.
Support approach: Planning sessions were timed for optimal cognition, using visual prompts and simplified language.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff record when and how the person was involved, noting preferences even when decisions are later made in best interests.
Evidence of effectiveness: Clear audit trail shows ongoing involvement rather than exclusion.
Example 3: Family partnership without overshadowing the person
Context: Family views were dominating planning, sometimes conflicting with the person’s expressed wishes.
Support approach: Facilitated meetings ensured the person’s voice was prioritised, with families supported to understand rights and choice.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Plans clearly distinguish between the person’s wishes, family input and professional advice.
Evidence of effectiveness: Reduced conflict, clearer decision-making and improved trust.
Commissioner and regulator expectations
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect co-production to be evidenced, not assumed. Plans should clearly show how individuals were involved and how strengths inform delivery.
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): Inspectors will look for genuine involvement, accessible communication and evidence that people influence their own care.
Governance and assurance
- Care plan audits testing evidence of co-production
- Supervision prompts exploring strengths-based thinking
- Complaints and feedback analysis for voice and choice themes
Co-production and strengths-based planning are not optional extras. They are fundamental to dignity, quality and lawful care for older people.