Digital Inclusion and Accessibility in Ageing Well Services: Making Technology Work in Practice
Digital inclusion is a critical success factor within technology, telecare and digital support for ageing well. Without explicit attention to accessibility, confidence and understanding, technology risks excluding the very people it is intended to support. This challenge is particularly visible when digital tools intersect with dementia service models and care pathways, where cognitive impairment, sensory loss and fluctuating capacity are common.
For providers, digital inclusion is not about device ownership or broadband access alone. It is about ensuring that technology fits the person, the environment and the support model, and that staff have the skills and confidence to make it work in day-to-day delivery.
Why digital exclusion creates operational and safeguarding risk
Digital exclusion in ageing well services can manifest in subtle but high-risk ways. People may agree to technology they do not fully understand, avoid using devices they find confusing, or disengage entirely from digital-enabled support. This can lead to:
- Missed alerts or ignored prompts that increase risk of falls or deterioration
- False reassurance for staff and families
- Increased safeguarding risk where monitoring replaces meaningful engagement
- Escalation to crisis services when early intervention could have been effective
Providers must therefore treat accessibility and inclusion as core quality and safety issues, not optional enhancements.
Operational example 1: adapting telecare for sensory impairment
Context: A provider supporting older people with hearing and visual impairment introduced standard telecare packages. Despite installation, response rates to alerts were low and staff noted repeated incidents where devices were not used.
Support approach: The provider reviewed accessibility at assessment stage, explicitly considering hearing, vision, dexterity and confidence. Devices were adapted: louder audio alerts, visual indicators, larger buttons and simplified interfaces were introduced.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff practised alert use with individuals during visits, observing whether prompts were understood and acted upon. Care plans recorded accessibility adjustments and clear instructions for staff on how to reinforce correct use during routine support.
Evidencing effectiveness: The provider evidenced increased alert activation, reduced missed incidents, and clearer records showing why specific adaptations were chosen. Incident reviews demonstrated that failures to respond reduced significantly.
Operational example 2: building confidence through supported digital routines
Context: In a community ageing well service, tablet-based wellbeing check-ins were introduced. Uptake was low, with many people reporting anxiety about “doing it wrong”.
Support approach: Rather than withdrawing the technology, the provider embedded supported digital routines. Staff introduced check-ins during visits, gradually transferring control to the individual while remaining present for reassurance.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Digital confidence was treated as an outcome in support planning. Staff documented progress, barriers and adjustments, and reviewed confidence levels during supervision. Technology use was never mandatory; alternatives were retained where appropriate.
Evidencing effectiveness: The service demonstrated improved engagement, clearer wellbeing data, and reduced reliance on reactive phone calls. Records showed explicit links between digital confidence-building and independence outcomes.
Operational example 3: dementia-informed digital inclusion
Context: A provider supporting people with early to moderate dementia used GPS and reminder technology. Some individuals experienced distress when alerts activated unexpectedly.
Support approach: The provider adopted a dementia-informed digital approach: simplifying functions, limiting alerts to essential triggers, and pairing technology with consistent verbal reassurance.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff reviewed alert settings regularly, reducing unnecessary notifications. Care plans documented emotional responses to technology, and family input was used to reinforce understanding and reassurance.
Evidencing effectiveness: Distress incidents reduced, and the provider could evidence proportionate, person-centred use of technology aligned to least restrictive practice.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate that digital solutions are accessible, inclusive and effective for diverse populations. They will expect evidence that technology does not exclude people with sensory impairment, cognitive impairment or low confidence, and that alternative arrangements are available where digital solutions are not appropriate.
Regulator expectation (CQC)
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): The CQC will expect providers to show that technology supports person-centred care and does not increase distress or restriction. Inspectors will look for evidence that accessibility is assessed, adjustments are made, and staff understand how to support people to use technology safely and confidently.
Governance and assurance mechanisms
Strong providers embed digital inclusion through:
- Accessibility checks at assessment and review
- Training on sensory and cognitive considerations
- Audit of technology use versus intended outcomes
- Clear documentation of adaptations and alternatives
These mechanisms ensure technology enhances care rather than creating new barriers.