Co-Production in Adult Social Care: Moving Beyond Consultation to Shared Decision-Making
Share
Co-production is now a core expectation in adult social care, but too often it is misunderstood as consultation rather than genuine shared decision-making. Commissioners and regulators increasingly expect providers to evidence how people drawing on care, their families and advocates actively shape services, not just comment on them after decisions have been made. Effective co-production requires a cultural shift, clear structures and practical mechanisms that operate consistently at individual, service and organisational levels.
This article explores how providers can move beyond tokenistic engagement to embed co-production into day-to-day delivery, quality governance and strategic planning, in ways that stand up to inspection and commissioning scrutiny.
Providers developing co-production frameworks often align this work closely with wider person-centred approaches and formal family and advocate involvement, ensuring consistency across care planning, reviews and service design.
What Co-Production Means in Practice
In operational terms, co-production means people are involved as equal partners in decisions that affect their lives. This includes choices about daily routines, support models, staffing approaches, risk management and long-term outcomes. It requires professionals to share power appropriately, rather than retaining control under the guise of safety or efficiency.
Commissioners increasingly look for evidence that co-production is embedded from the outset, including how services were designed, how feedback shapes change, and how people are supported to participate meaningfully.
Operational Examples of Effective Co-Production
Example one: co-produced support planning. A supported living provider redesigned its support planning process so that individuals led meetings using accessible formats. Staff prepared visual summaries, and people chose priorities, outcomes and review schedules. Changes requested by individuals were tracked and evidenced within care records.
Example two: service design panels. A provider established quarterly service-user panels with real decision-making authority over activity budgets, environmental changes and recruitment questions. Minutes recorded decisions taken and actions implemented, which were later reviewed by senior leadership.
Example three: co-produced risk enablement. Individuals worked alongside staff to develop positive risk assessments, agreeing what risks were acceptable and what safeguards felt proportionate. This reduced restrictive practices while improving confidence and independence.
Choice and Control at Individual Level
Choice and control must be visible in everyday routines, not just in care plans. Inspectors frequently look for alignment between documented choices and observed practice, such as flexible meal times, personalised activities, and control over who provides support.
Providers should ensure staff understand how to offer real choices, particularly where communication needs or cognitive impairment are present. This often requires additional training and supervision to avoid defaulting to organisational convenience.
Commissioner and Regulator Expectations
Commissioners typically expect providers to demonstrate how co-production informs service improvement, contract reviews and outcomes reporting. Evidence may include action logs, feedback loops and examples of service changes directly resulting from lived experience input.
Regulators expect co-production to align with quality statements around person-centred care, involvement and respect. During inspection, staff may be asked how individuals influence decisions, and people using services may be asked whether they feel listened to and involved.
Governance and Assurance Mechanisms
Strong providers embed co-production into governance structures. This may include board-level reporting on engagement activity, service-user representation in quality meetings, and regular audits of how feedback is acted upon.
Without clear assurance mechanisms, co-production risks becoming informal and inconsistent, leaving providers exposed during inspection or contract monitoring.
Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Common issues include over-reliance on surveys, lack of accessible information, and failing to close feedback loops. Providers should ensure people can see the impact of their involvement, even where suggestions cannot be implemented.
Transparency builds trust and demonstrates that co-production is meaningful rather than symbolic.
Why Co-Production Strengthens Outcomes
When people have genuine choice and control, outcomes improve. Individuals are more engaged, risks are better understood, and services become more responsive. For commissioners, this translates into better value and reduced service breakdown.
For providers, effective co-production strengthens quality, defensibility and long-term sustainability.
💼 Rapid Support Products (fast turnaround options)
- ⚡ 48-Hour Tender Triage
- 🆘 Bid Rescue Session – 60 minutes
- ✍️ Score Booster – Tender Answer Rewrite (500–2000 words)
- 🧩 Tender Answer Blueprint
- 📝 Tender Proofreading & Light Editing
- 🔍 Pre-Tender Readiness Audit
- 📁 Tender Document Review
🚀 Need a Bid Writing Quote?
If you’re exploring support for an upcoming tender or framework, request a quick, no-obligation quote. I’ll review your documents and respond with:
- A clear scope of work
- Estimated days required
- A fixed fee quote
- Any risks, considerations or quick wins