Co-Production in Digital Enablement: Choosing Technology With People, Not For Them

Digital enablement delivers the strongest outcomes when people are involved in decisions from the outset. Technology should not be something done to people, installed around them or selected mainly for organisational convenience. It should be chosen with people, shaped around their goals and reviewed through their experience of safety, independence, privacy, dignity and control.

This is why co-production must sit at the centre of digital transformation in social care. Digital tools can support independence, reduce unnecessary staff intrusion and strengthen outcomes, but only when people have genuine influence over whether technology is introduced, how it works and when it should be changed or removed.

This approach sits at the centre of Person-Centred Technology, links directly to Co-Production, Choice and Control, and complements strong practice in Involving Family and Advocates. Where technology affects risk, routines, privacy or decision-making, people and those who know them well must be meaningfully involved from the beginning.

What Co-Production Means in Digital Enablement

Co-production is not asking someone to approve a pre-selected device. It is not presenting technology as a finished solution and asking for agreement afterwards. It is not consulting people only after procurement, installation or care planning decisions have already been made.

In digital enablement, co-production means working with the person to understand what they want to achieve, what matters to them, what feels acceptable, what feels intrusive and what support would help them live with more confidence and control.

Good co-production involves:

• defining outcomes with the person
• exploring digital and non-digital options
• discussing privacy, consent and boundaries
• trialling technology before making it permanent
• reviewing impact in accessible ways
• involving families, advocates or representatives where appropriate
• recording the person’s voice clearly
• removing or adapting technology if it does not work

The central question is not “Can this technology manage risk?” It is “Does this technology support the person’s life in a way they understand, accept and benefit from?”

Why Co-Production Matters

Digital tools can easily become provider-led if not carefully governed. A sensor may be introduced because staff are worried. A reminder system may be installed because it reduces prompts. A monitoring device may be selected because it reassures family members. A digital record may be designed around compliance needs rather than the person’s experience.

These motivations may be understandable, but they are not enough. Technology should support the person’s outcomes, not simply make the service easier to manage.

When co-production is weak, technology can:

• feel intrusive or controlling
• reduce dignity
• increase anxiety
• create family conflict
• be ignored or rejected
• become unnecessarily restrictive
• fail to address the real issue
• undermine trust between the person and staff

When co-production is strong, technology is more likely to be used willingly, understood properly and experienced as supportive rather than imposed.

Commissioner and Regulator Expectations

Commissioners and inspectors increasingly expect providers to evidence that digital tools are person-centred, proportionate and outcome-led. They will not usually be reassured by technology adoption alone. They will want to know why the technology was introduced, who was involved, what alternatives were considered and how the provider knows it is working.

Expectation 1: Outcomes-Led Digital Decision-Making

Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate how technology supports independence, safety, wellbeing, inclusion or quality of life. This means the provider should be able to explain the outcome being pursued before the technology is chosen.

For example, the outcome may be:

• feeling safer when going out alone
• reducing repetitive staff prompts
• supporting medication routines
• improving confidence at night
• reducing family anxiety without reducing autonomy
• supporting communication or orientation
• maintaining independence after a change in health

The evidence should show that technology was selected because it supported the person’s goal, not because it was convenient for the provider.

Expectation 2: Clear Rationale Where Technology Intersects With Risk

Inspectors expect providers to evidence that digital tools linked to risk, monitoring or alerts are proportionate and regularly reviewed. Where technology affects privacy, freedom, movement, routines or staff response, the provider must be able to explain why it is appropriate.

This is especially important where technology could become restrictive. Providers should be able to evidence:

• the risk being addressed
• the person’s views and preferences
• capacity and consent considerations
• less restrictive options considered
• family or advocate involvement where appropriate
• trial arrangements
• review dates
• criteria for adapting or removing the technology

Expectation 3: The Person’s Voice Must Be Visible

The person’s voice should be clear in records. This does not always mean written consent in standard language. For some people, it may include accessible feedback, observation of response, communication with advocates, family insight, use of symbols, social stories, objects of reference, video explanation or supported decision-making.

The key issue is that the provider can show how the person was involved in a way that was meaningful to them.

A Workable Co-Production Pathway

Co-production should be practical enough for busy services to use consistently. Providers can strengthen digital decision-making by using a clear pathway from goal-setting through to review.

Step 1: Start With the Person’s Goal

Before discussing devices or platforms, staff should understand what the person wants to achieve. This should be recorded in language that reflects the person’s own priorities wherever possible.

Examples may include:

• “I want to feel safer when I am out.”
• “I do not want staff reminding me all the time.”
• “I want my family to know I am okay, but not see everything I do.”
• “I want to stay in my flat overnight without unnecessary checks.”
• “I want to remember appointments without relying on staff.”

Starting with the goal helps prevent technology being selected too early.

Step 2: Explore Digital and Non-Digital Options

Good co-production explores more than one option. Sometimes the right answer may be technology. Sometimes it may be a routine change, environmental adaptation, communication support, staff coaching, family agreement or a combination of approaches.

Providers should record what options were considered and why the chosen approach best supports the person’s outcome.

Step 3: Agree Boundaries Before the Trial

Digital boundaries should be discussed before any trial begins. This is especially important where technology gathers data, sends alerts or allows others to see information.

Questions should include:

• What information will be collected?
• Who will see it?
• When will staff respond?
• What will not be monitored?
• What would feel intrusive?
• What happens if the person changes their mind?
• How will success be reviewed?

Clear boundaries reduce misunderstanding and protect trust.

Step 4: Trial and Review

Technology should usually be trialled before becoming a settled part of support. Trials should be time-limited, outcome-led and reviewed with the person.

During the trial, providers should capture:

• how often the technology is used
• whether it supports the intended outcome
• how the person feels about it
• whether staff use it consistently
• whether risks change
• whether family or advocate concerns reduce or increase
• whether adjustments are needed

Step 5: Record the Rationale and Review Points

The final decision should be recorded clearly. Records should show why the technology was chosen, what alternatives were considered, what the person said or communicated, what risks were reviewed and when the decision will be revisited.

This record becomes the core assurance evidence for commissioners, inspectors and internal governance.

Operational Example 1: Community Confidence Through a Simple Digital Prompt

A person with a learning disability wanted to travel independently to a local activity but became anxious when unexpected situations occurred. Staff were concerned that the person might phone repeatedly or return home early if they felt uncertain.

The provider avoided starting with a restrictive location-tracking approach. Instead, staff worked with the person to understand what they wanted: they wanted to feel more confident asking for help without feeling watched.

The co-produced approach involved:

• agreeing what situations felt most difficult
• creating a simple digital prompt on the person’s phone
• recording short reassurance messages in familiar language
• agreeing when staff would be contacted
• trialling the approach on short journeys
• reviewing confidence after each outing

The outcome was improved confidence, fewer crisis calls and increased community participation. The assurance evidence included the person’s feedback, staff observations, family comments and review notes showing how the prompt was adapted during the trial.

Operational Example 2: Reducing Prompts Without Reducing Contact

A person receiving supported living support became frustrated by repeated verbal prompts from staff around medication, appointments and daily routines. Staff believed they were being helpful, but the person experienced the prompts as intrusive and infantilising.

The provider worked with the person to explore alternatives. The agreed goal was not “reduce staff time”. The goal was “reduce frustration while keeping support available”.

The co-produced solution included:

• smart reminders for agreed tasks
• staff contact maintained at planned social times
• clear agreement about which prompts staff would stop giving
• review of missed reminders without blame
• accessible feedback after the first month

The person reported feeling more respected and less interrupted. Staff remained involved, but in a way that felt more adult and less controlling. This showed that digital enablement can improve dignity when it is shaped around the person’s experience.

Operational Example 3: Family Reassurance Without Over-Sharing

A family member was anxious about a person living more independently and wanted frequent updates from staff. The person wanted their family to feel reassured but did not want them to have access to every daily record or private detail.

The provider facilitated a co-produced discussion involving the person, family member, key worker and manager. The outcome was a limited alert and update arrangement rather than full access to records.

The agreement included:

• what information could be shared
• what information would remain private
• when staff would contact family
• what counted as a significant concern
• how the person could change the arrangement
• when the agreement would be reviewed

This reduced family anxiety while preserving the person’s autonomy. The provider could evidence that reassurance was balanced with privacy, consent and rights.

Operational Example 4: Deciding Not to Use Technology

Co-production may also lead to a decision not to use technology. A provider considered introducing a sensor-based alert system for a person who sometimes left their bedroom at night. Staff were concerned about falls risk, but the person became distressed when the idea was explained and said they did not want monitoring in their private space.

The provider reviewed alternatives, including:

• improved lighting
• removing trip hazards
• changing the evening routine
• reviewing pain and hydration
• using non-intrusive environmental adjustments
• increasing staff observation during known risk periods without bedroom monitoring

The decision not to use technology was recorded with the rationale, risks and alternative controls. This is also good assurance. Co-production does not mean technology must always be introduced. It means the person’s rights, preferences and outcomes shape the decision.

Family, Advocates and Representatives

Families and advocates can play an important role in digital enablement, especially where the person has communication needs, fluctuating capacity or limited verbal communication. They may understand routines, fears, preferences and signs of distress that are not obvious from formal records.

However, family involvement must be balanced with the person’s autonomy and privacy. A family member may want more monitoring than the person wants. Professionals may need to support a respectful conversation about risk, independence and boundaries.

Good practice includes:

• involving families early where appropriate
• checking the person’s wishes about information sharing
• using advocates when views are difficult to establish
• recording agreement and disagreement clearly
• reviewing whether family reassurance is becoming over-monitoring
• ensuring the person’s voice remains central

Consent, Capacity and Restriction Risk

Technology can blur boundaries between support and restriction. A digital prompt may support independence, but a monitoring system may limit privacy. A sensor may reduce risk, but it may also increase surveillance. A family-access dashboard may reassure relatives, but it may undermine autonomy if not carefully managed.

Providers should consider:

• does the person understand the technology?
• has consent been obtained where the person has capacity?
• is a best interests process needed?
• is the technology proportionate to the risk?
• is there a less restrictive alternative?
• how will the decision be reviewed?
• what would trigger removal or adjustment?

This is where digital enablement connects closely with Digital Safeguarding and Technology-Enabled Harm. Providers must ensure that technology does not create hidden restriction, coercion, over-monitoring or misuse of personal data.

Workforce Practice and Digital Confidence

Co-production can fail if staff do not understand how to use the agreed technology in a person-centred way. Staff may override the person’s preferences, rely too heavily on alerts, continue old prompting habits or interpret the technology as a replacement for engagement.

Strong providers support staff through:

• practical training
• clear guidance on the person’s goal
• supervision prompts on dignity and autonomy
• review of staff interaction style
• competency checks where technology affects risk
• reflection on whether technology is improving outcomes

This links closely to Digital Skills, Training and Workforce Adoption, because technology is only enabling when staff use it confidently, ethically and consistently.

Governance and Assurance

Effective co-production should be visible in governance. It should not depend only on informal conversations or individual staff memory.

Good governance includes:

• standard templates for recording options considered
• accessible decision records
• defined review points following trials
• manager oversight of rationale and consent
• risk review where technology involves monitoring
• supervision prompts focused on dignity and restriction risk
• feedback from the person and those who know them well
• evidence of changes made after review

Commissioners and inspectors will want to see that technology decisions are not static. Providers should be able to evidence review, adjustment and learning over time.

What Success Looks Like

Successful co-production results in technology that people use willingly, understand clearly and experience as helpful. It supports independence without undermining privacy. It provides reassurance without removing autonomy. It improves safety without becoming unnecessarily restrictive.

Good evidence may include:

• the person’s stated goal
• options explored
• accessible information used
• consent or best interests records
• trial feedback
• family or advocate input
• risk review
• outcome evidence
• review notes showing adaptation

Technology is successful when it strengthens the person’s life, not merely when it functions correctly.

Common Pitfalls

• Choosing technology before defining the person’s outcome.
• Asking for agreement after the decision has effectively been made.
• Assuming family reassurance should override the person’s privacy.
• Failing to explore non-digital alternatives.
• Not reviewing whether technology feels intrusive.
• Using technology to reduce staff contact without reviewing wellbeing.
• Failing to record consent, capacity or best interests reasoning.
• Not training staff in how the person wants the technology used.
• Keeping technology in place after it no longer supports the outcome.
• Treating co-production as a one-off conversation rather than an ongoing review process.

Conclusion

Co-production is the difference between technology that improves quality of life and technology that becomes restrictive, unused or resented. In adult social care, digital enablement must begin with the person’s goals, preferences, rights and lived experience.

Strong providers choose technology with people, not for them. They explore options, agree boundaries, review impact and record the rationale clearly. They involve families and advocates where appropriate, but keep the person’s voice central.

When digital enablement is co-produced well, technology becomes more than a system or device. It becomes part of person-centred support: helping people live with more confidence, dignity, independence and control.