Co-Production Without Tokenism: Practical Methods for Supported Living Plans and Reviews
“We co-produce plans” is easy to state and hard to evidence. The difference between meaningful co-production and tokenism is whether the person’s voice changes what staff do, how risks are managed, and how outcomes are measured. This article sets out practical methods that strengthen person-centred planning and co-production while remaining auditable through quality assurance and auditing systems that commissioners and regulators recognise.
What tokenistic co-production looks like
Tokenism usually shows up as:
- Meetings where decisions are already made.
- Plans written “about” the person using professional language they cannot access.
- Choice offered only within narrow service constraints.
- Feedback captured but not acted on (no “you said, we did”).
Meaningful co-production is evidenced through decision trails, changes to delivery and ongoing review.
Core methods that make co-production real
Providers can use several practical methods, matched to communication style and support needs:
- Accessible planning tools: one-page profiles, visual plans, easy-read outcomes, audio summaries.
- Preference mapping: structured exploration of what matters, what helps, and what to avoid.
- Supported decision-making: preparing choices in advance and using trusted supporters appropriately.
- Micro-feedback loops: capturing small feedback frequently and showing resulting adjustments.
Operational example 1: “What matters” workshops linked to rota and routines
Context: Plans describe preferences, but daily routines don’t reflect them, leading to low engagement.
Support approach: The service runs short “what matters” workshops with the person, family (where appropriate) and key staff to agree three priorities for daily living.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Priorities are translated into rota decisions (best-matched staff for mornings), meal planning, and community scheduling. Staff carry a short prompt sheet summarising the person’s priorities and preferred support style.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Weekly reviews show improved participation and reduced refusal. Records show routine changes directly linked to the person’s expressed preferences.
Operational example 2: Co-produced risk plans that document alternatives considered
Context: Risk plans are written by professionals with limited evidence of the person’s involvement.
Support approach: The service introduces a co-produced risk template requiring “options explored” and “least restrictive choice” sections.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff discuss risks using accessible language and present realistic options (including the option to accept some risk). Decisions are documented with the person’s reasoning where possible, and review dates are agreed upfront.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Audit samples show consistent documentation of alternatives, and restrictions are time-limited and reviewed. Commissioners can see proportionality and rationale.
Operational example 3: “You said, we did” feedback loops in reviews
Context: The person reports feeling unheard because feedback disappears into paperwork.
Support approach: Reviews include a “you said, we did” section covering the last period.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff log feedback in small increments (what worked, what didn’t) and managers ensure actions are assigned and followed up. At review, the person sees what changed and what still needs work.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Increased engagement in reviews, clearer action completion, and improved trust. Evidence shows a continuous improvement cycle driven by the person’s experience.
Governance: how to evidence co-production without bureaucracy
Co-production can be evidenced through light-touch governance controls:
- Sampling plans to check accessibility and evidence of involvement.
- Reviewing whether actions from feedback are completed.
- Using supervision to test staff understanding of “what matters” priorities.
Commissioner expectation
Expectation: Commissioners expect co-production to be visible in decisions, outcomes and delivery changes, not only in meeting attendance or signatures.
Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC)
Expectation: Inspectors expect people to be involved in decisions about their care and support, with clear evidence that preferences shape daily practice and that services respond when things are not working.
Co-production is most credible when it is practical: it changes routines, shapes risk decisions, and produces an auditable trail of learning and adjustment.