Creating Life Story Tools That Staff Actually Use in Older People’s Services
Share
Life story work is often described as essential in older people’s services, but in many organisations it becomes a one-off document completed at assessment and rarely used again. When life stories sit in a folder or a digital system without shaping how staff speak, plan, respond and adapt, the value is lost. The difference between “having life story information” and “using life story information” is operational practice and governance.
This is closely connected to how providers evidence person-centred care and outcomes. It also supports safer, more responsive practice, particularly where distress or withdrawal are triggered by loss, change or unfamiliar routines. For linked wider practice, see Person-Centred Planning in Social Care and Quality Assurance in Social Care.
What “usable life story work” looks like in practice
A usable life story tool is not a biography. It is a working resource that helps staff get everyday interactions right. In older people’s services, it should:
- Be quick to locate (paper and/or digital) and easy to scan
- Translate history into practical “how to support” guidance
- Focus on triggers, routines, identity, preferences and communication
- Be updated when things change (health, grief, mobility, mood, confidence)
- Be reflected in daily notes, care plans, handovers and supervision
Designing life story tools that fit the reality of care delivery
For tools to be used consistently, they must fit the way staff work. In most older people’s services, staff need:
- A one-page “snapshot” for fast reference (who I am, what matters, what helps)
- A structured section on communication and engagement (how to approach me)
- A section on “distress prevention” (what unsettles me, what calms me)
- A section on routines and identity (daily rhythm, roles, meaning)
- A full life story detail layer (optional, richer narrative) for relationship-building
These layers allow both speed and depth, without expecting staff to read a long document during busy shifts.
Operational example 1: Homecare team using “first visit identity brief”
Context: A homecare service had recurring complaints that first visits felt rushed and impersonal. People reported staff “not knowing me” and “talking over me”.
Support approach: The service introduced a one-page identity brief completed during assessment with the person and/or family, focusing on how staff should communicate, how the person prefers to be supported, and what to avoid.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The brief was printed and placed in the front of the care folder and uploaded to the system. The first visiting staff member had a specific checklist: read the brief before knocking; confirm preferred name and greeting; ask one “getting to know you” question linked to identity; confirm one “today preference” (timing, routine, music, tea, conversation level). The brief was referenced in handovers so new staff did not default to generic scripts.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Complaint themes reduced, spot checks confirmed staff used preferred greetings, and feedback calls recorded improved satisfaction after first visits. Supervision notes tracked whether staff could describe “what matters” for each person.
Operational example 2: Extra care scheme linking life story to activity planning
Context: An extra care scheme had low engagement in group activities. Residents described activities as “not for me” and staff reported people “don’t want to join”.
Support approach: Life story tools were adapted to include “meaningful roles and interests” and “how I like to spend my day”. Staff used this to redesign engagement approaches.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Instead of inviting people to generic activities, staff approached individuals with tailored prompts linked to their identity (e.g., ex-gardener invited to help plan planting; ex-cook invited to suggest weekly menu ideas; former choir member invited to choose music). Staff created smaller, informal micro-activities aligned to interests rather than one large programme. Life story information was referenced in daily notes (“chose music from…”, “shared story about…”) to demonstrate use.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Participation increased, wellbeing observations improved, and monthly engagement audits showed higher uptake of personalised prompts. Residents’ feedback indicated greater sense of belonging.
Operational example 3: Reducing distress by embedding life story into “what helps” plans
Context: An older adult experienced repeated distress during personal care, with staff recording “refusal” and “agitation”.
Support approach: A focused life story conversation identified that distress was linked to embarrassment and loss of control, shaped by past experiences and values around privacy.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The life story tool was updated with a “what helps” section: always explain steps before starting; offer the same two choices each time; allow the person to wash face and hands themselves; ensure towels are ready to prevent exposure; use calm, low tone; avoid rushing; use the person’s preferred phrase to signal pauses. This guidance was built into the care plan and reinforced in handovers and team meetings.
How effectiveness or change is evidenced: Distress incidents reduced, daily records showed improved cooperation, and staff confidence increased. Audits confirmed the “what helps” guidance was used consistently across staff.
Commissioner expectation (explicit)
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to evidence person-centred care through practical mechanisms that shape delivery. Life story work should be demonstrably linked to improved engagement, reduced distress, and consistent practice across staff, not simply completed as paperwork.
Regulator / Inspector expectation (explicit)
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): Inspectors will expect providers to know people as individuals and to show that staff understand and apply personal preferences, history and communication needs. They will compare care plans, staff practice and people’s lived experience for consistency.
Governance: how you assure life story work is real, not cosmetic
Life story work needs ownership and review controls. Strong governance includes:
- Audit checks: Monthly sampling of care records to confirm references to life story preferences in daily notes and reviews.
- Supervision prompts: Supervisors ask staff to describe “what matters” and “what helps” for specific people, testing knowledge and consistency.
- Observation: Spot checks on greetings, tone, pacing and whether staff use preferred approaches.
- Review triggers: Life story updates required after hospital discharge, bereavement, safeguarding concerns, increased falls, or emerging distress.
- Co-production: People and families involved in confirming accuracy and relevance, with clear consent and privacy controls.
Common implementation pitfalls and how to avoid them
Pitfall 1: Overly long narratives with no practical guidance. Fix this by including a one-page “how to support me” snapshot.
Pitfall 2: Staff cannot access the life story quickly. Fix this by making it front-of-file and system pinned, and reinforcing use in handovers.
Pitfall 3: No one updates it. Fix this by linking updates to review triggers and allocating responsibility.
Key takeaway
Life story work improves outcomes when it becomes operational: it shapes how staff approach, speak, pace care and build trust. Usable tools and governance controls turn life story work into defensible evidence of person-centred care.
💼 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