Co-Production in Supported Living: Practical Methods That Stand Up to Scrutiny
Co-production in supported living is often described well and delivered inconsistently. The difference between “we involved people” and genuine shared decision-making is whether co-production is built into your planning cycle, daily routines and governance. This article sets out methods that make person-centred planning and co-production real in day-to-day delivery, while keeping plans workable for staff and defensible under review. It also connects co-production to how services actually run, including supported living service models and best practice.
What commissioners and inspectors mean by co-production
In practice, co-production should show that the person (and where appropriate their family/advocate) has influenced:
- Goals and outcomes (what matters most, not just what is “needed”).
- How support is delivered (routines, prompts, communication, staffing approaches).
- How risk is managed (least restrictive options and positive risk-taking decisions).
- How progress is reviewed (what success looks like and how it will be measured).
If the plan is detailed but staff actions do not reflect the person’s preferences, co-production becomes a narrative rather than a reality.
Turn co-production into a repeatable process
Strong providers do not rely on one planning meeting. They build co-production into a repeatable process with clear roles:
- Preparation: accessible information, agenda prompts, and choices presented in ways the person can use.
- Decision capture: documenting what was decided, what options were considered, and why.
- Translation into practice: converting decisions into daily routines and staff instructions.
- Review and learning: structured feedback loops and trigger-based updates.
Operational example 1: Co-producing daily routines that reduce distress
Context: A person becomes distressed in the mornings and refuses personal care, leading to conflict and delays. Staff describe the plan as “not practical”.
Support approach: The team re-runs co-production using a “day in the life” mapping session. The person identifies sensory triggers and preferred sequencing (breakfast first, shower later, choosing clothing the night before).
Day-to-day delivery detail: The updated plan includes a step-by-step morning routine with agreed language and time windows. Staff use a visual checklist on shift, record which steps were used, and discuss adherence during handovers. Agency staff receive a short routine summary as part of shift briefing.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Fewer refusals and reduced conflict are shown through daily notes and incident trends. The person reports feeling more in control, captured through a simple weekly “what worked/what didn’t” check-in.
Operational example 2: Co-producing meaningful activities (not “activity lists”)
Context: A person is “offered activities” but rarely engages. Records show repeated “declined” entries, and staff interpret this as lack of motivation.
Support approach: Co-production focuses on meaning and barriers: what the person enjoys, what puts them off, and what support adjustments help. The person prioritises quiet community spaces and predictable travel routes.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff co-produce a weekly rhythm with two priority activities and two flexible options, plus agreed alternatives when plans change. Staff prepare the night before (clothes, travel card, preferred snack) and use a “choice prompt” script rather than repeated questions. Notes record what adjustments were made and what the person chose.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Participation increases and “declined” entries reduce. Quality assurance spot checks confirm staff record adjustments and choices, not just attendance.
Operational example 3: Co-producing risk decisions with clear safeguards
Context: A person wants to travel independently, but staff are concerned about road safety and exploitation risk. Previous decisions have been “no” without a clear rationale.
Support approach: A co-produced risk workshop is held, exploring options from most restrictive to least restrictive. The person’s goal is retained, and support is shaped around staged independence.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The plan sets out a graded approach: accompanied travel with active teaching, then shadowing, then independent travel on a set route with agreed check-in points. Staff record practice sessions, what the person demonstrated, and when steps can safely progress. Any incidents trigger a mini-review rather than an automatic step-back.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Progress is evidenced through competency checklists, travel logs, and reduced staff prompts over time. Decision-making is transparent in the plan and review notes.
Governance and assurance: how you show co-production is real
To stand up to scrutiny, co-production needs an evidence trail that is simple and consistent:
- Decision notes: who was involved, what choices were presented, what was agreed.
- Accessible formats: easy-read summaries or visuals that show the person’s “version” of the plan.
- Staff alignment checks: supervision questions and observations to confirm staff are following co-produced routines.
- Review triggers: agreed points when decisions will be revisited, not left indefinitely.
Commissioner expectation
Expectation: Commissioners expect co-production to influence service delivery and outcomes, not just be described. They look for evidence that people’s preferences shape routines, support planning, risk decisions and review cycles.
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC)
Expectation: Inspectors expect people to be involved in decisions about their care and support, and for staff to demonstrate how people’s choices and rights are reflected in day-to-day practice and recorded learning.
Co-production becomes credible when it is repeatable, translated into staff actions, and evidenced through consistent records, supervision and review discipline.