Digital Inclusion for Families, Carers and Unpaid Supporters

Digital systems are becoming increasingly important in the way families, carers and unpaid supporters interact with adult social care services. Online care records, digital care plans, secure messaging, video meetings and electronic updates can improve transparency, continuity and involvement. However, these benefits are only realised when systems are accessible, understandable and flexible enough to reflect the practical realities of caring responsibilities.

This article forms part of the Social Value Knowledge Hub and complements guidance on Digital Inclusion, Access & Reducing Exclusion, Co-Production, Lived Experience & Citizen Voice, Equality, Diversity & Inclusion in Social Value and Measuring, Evidencing & Reporting Social Value.

Commissioners increasingly expect providers to demonstrate that digital systems strengthen family and carer involvement without creating new barriers, replacing relational support or excluding people who cannot engage confidently online.

Why digital inclusion for families and carers matters

Families and unpaid carers often hold essential knowledge about a person’s history, communication, preferences, risks and changing needs. Digital systems can help providers share information more consistently, involve carers in reviews and maintain continuity across different teams.

Inclusive digital engagement can support:

• Better access to care information.
• Timely communication with professionals.
• Greater involvement in care planning and reviews.
• Improved continuity when staff or services change.
• Earlier identification of concerns.
• Stronger trust between families and providers.
• Reduced duplication of information.
• More transparent decision-making.

Digital access should therefore complement, rather than replace, respectful and person-centred relationships.

Understanding digital exclusion among families and unpaid supporters

Digital exclusion is not limited to people without internet access. Families may experience barriers because of confidence, language, disability, limited time, complex caring responsibilities or poorly designed systems.

Common barriers include:

• Limited access to suitable devices.
• Poor or unreliable internet connectivity.
• Low digital confidence.
• Language or literacy needs.
• Sensory, cognitive or physical impairments.
• Complex passwords and authentication requirements.
• Unclear professional terminology.
• Lack of time because of caring pressures.

Digital exclusion may also fluctuate. A carer who manages an online system confidently during stable periods may struggle when the person’s needs increase or family circumstances change.

Commissioner and regulatory expectations

Commissioners increasingly expect providers to demonstrate that digital innovation improves involvement and access rather than narrowing it. CQC-aligned assurance also requires providers to show that people and those important to them can understand information, express views and participate in decisions.

Providers should be able to explain:

• How family and carer digital needs are assessed.
• What alternatives exist to digital-only communication.
• How consent and access rights are managed.
• How information is made understandable.
• How concerns are escalated when digital barriers arise.
• How feedback informs system improvement.

Commissioners are unlikely to be reassured by claims that a portal exists unless the provider can show that families can use it effectively.

Assessing digital access and support needs

Digital inclusion should be considered at the beginning of a service and reviewed over time. Providers should not assume that every family member or carer has the same access, confidence or role.

A proportionate assessment may consider:

• Preferred communication methods.
• Access to devices and connectivity.
• Language and accessibility needs.
• Confidence using digital systems.
• Consent and legal authority.
• Frequency of updates required.
• Need for practical support.
• Alternative non-digital arrangements.

This information should inform communication plans and be reviewed when circumstances change.

Operational example 1: supporting access to digital care plans

A supported living provider introduces an online portal through which authorised family members can view agreed care-plan information and contribute to reviews. Several relatives report difficulty understanding the navigation and terminology.

The provider responds by:

• Offering one-to-one demonstrations.
• Producing a plain-English user guide.
• Adding clearer headings and explanations.
• Providing telephone support.
• Recording preferred communication methods.
• Reviewing feedback after three months.

Family participation increases because the provider adapts the system rather than assuming non-engagement reflects lack of interest.

Providing flexible routes for involvement

Digital engagement should always be one option within a broader communication model. Families and carers should be able to choose methods that reflect their circumstances and preferences.

Flexible approaches may include:

• Secure digital portals.
• Email or text updates.
• Telephone contact.
• Video meetings.
• Face-to-face reviews.
• Accessible written summaries.
• Interpreting or translation support.
• Named family liaison contacts.

Choice is particularly important where carers have limited availability or where digital contact may not be appropriate for sensitive discussions.

Using digital tools without weakening relational practice

Technology can improve communication, but it should not become a substitute for professional judgement or personal contact. Families may need reassurance, explanation and opportunities to discuss difficult issues rather than receiving automated notifications alone.

Providers should ensure that:

• Important changes are explained personally.
• Urgent concerns are not left within unattended systems.
• Families know who to contact.
• Digital updates are timely and accurate.
• Communication remains respectful and proportionate.
• Complex decisions are discussed, not merely uploaded.

This balance helps digital systems support trust rather than undermine it.

Operational example 2: maintaining involvement during hospital discharge

An unpaid carer is involved in planning support following a hospital discharge but cannot attend daytime meetings because of employment commitments.

The provider:

• Offers a secure evening video meeting.
• Shares an accessible care-plan summary.
• Records the carer’s concerns and recommendations.
• Clarifies escalation contacts.
• Provides telephone updates during the first week.
• Reviews the arrangement after discharge.

The flexible approach enables meaningful involvement without expecting the carer to fit around a rigid professional timetable.

Consent, confidentiality and access rights

Family involvement must always be balanced with the person’s rights, choices and confidentiality. Digital access should not automatically be granted simply because someone is a relative or provides unpaid support.

Providers should have clear processes covering:

• Consent to share information.
• Mental capacity and best-interests decisions.
• Legal authority and representation.
• Role-based access to records.
• Information that should remain restricted.
• Changes or withdrawal of consent.
• Secure authentication.
• Recording of information-sharing decisions.

Staff should understand the difference between involving carers appropriately and disclosing information without lawful authority.

Staff confidence and professional boundaries

Frontline staff need practical guidance on how to communicate digitally with families while maintaining professional boundaries and secure information handling.

Training should address:

• Approved communication systems.
• Consent and confidentiality.
• Responding to out-of-hours messages.
• Managing inappropriate or excessive contact.
• Recording significant communication.
• Escalating family concerns.
• Inclusive and accessible language.
• Maintaining professional boundaries online.

Without clear expectations, staff may either share too much information or avoid useful digital communication because they are uncertain about the rules.

Operational example 3: learning from a digital communication complaint

A family member complains that important changes were uploaded to an online portal without any direct explanation. The provider reviews the incident and recognises that digital communication had replaced relational contact at a sensitive point.

The organisation responds by:

• Reviewing communication protocols.
• Defining which updates require personal contact.
• Briefing staff on family communication expectations.
• Adding alerts for significant care-plan changes.
• Monitoring similar complaints.
• Reporting learning through governance meetings.

The review strengthens practice by clarifying that digital systems support communication but do not replace professional responsibility.

Accessible information and reasonable adjustments

Digital information should be designed for the people expected to use it. Providers should consider whether language, layout and functionality create avoidable barriers.

Reasonable adjustments may include:

• Plain-English explanations.
• Larger text and high-contrast displays.
• Screen-reader compatibility.
• Translation and interpreting support.
• Easy-read summaries.
• Audio or video guidance.
• Alternative login support.
• Printed information where required.

Accessibility should be reviewed before implementation and whenever systems are significantly changed.

Co-producing digital family engagement

Families and unpaid carers should be involved in designing and reviewing digital engagement systems. Their experience can identify barriers that may not be visible to managers or technology suppliers.

Useful co-production activity includes:

• Testing systems before launch.
• Family and carer focus groups.
• Accessible feedback surveys.
• Carer representation on digital steering groups.
• Review of user guidance.
• Joint evaluation after implementation.

Providers should evidence what changed because of this involvement rather than simply recording attendance.

Governance and organisational assurance

Digital family engagement should be visible within quality, information governance and social value oversight. Senior leaders need assurance that systems are inclusive, lawful and effective.

Useful governance information includes:

• Family and carer portal usage.
• Requests for non-digital alternatives.
• Complaints linked to digital access.
• Consent or information-sharing incidents.
• Accessibility adjustments provided.
• Staff training completion.
• Feedback themes.
• Improvement actions completed.

This information should be interpreted carefully. Low portal use may indicate poor accessibility rather than low interest.

Measuring the impact of inclusive digital engagement

Commissioners increasingly expect providers to demonstrate whether digital systems improve involvement and outcomes.

Proportionate measures may include:

• Family and carer satisfaction.
• Participation in reviews.
• Timeliness of communication.
• Reduction in repeated information requests.
• Use of accessible formats.
• Resolution of digital barriers.
• Complaints and compliments.
• Examples of decisions influenced by family input.

Short case examples can add context by showing how flexible digital engagement improved continuity, trust or care planning.

Common pitfalls to avoid

• Assuming all families can engage digitally.
• Making online portals the only communication route.
• Using complex professional language.
• Granting access without clear consent.
• Failing to support carers who lack confidence.
• Replacing personal communication with automated updates.
• Ignoring accessibility after system launch.
• Collecting feedback without acting on it.

What commissioners expect

Commissioners increasingly expect providers to demonstrate:

• Assessment of digital access and communication needs.
• Choice between digital and non-digital routes.
• Accessible information and reasonable adjustments.
• Clear consent and confidentiality controls.
• Staff competence and professional boundaries.
• Family and carer co-production.
• Routine monitoring and governance.
• Evidence that digital engagement improves involvement.

How to evidence this in tenders and commissioner reviews

Strong tender responses should explain how families and unpaid carers are supported to engage digitally, how access needs are assessed and how non-digital alternatives remain available. Providers should describe consent processes, accessibility arrangements, staff training, co-production and governance.

Useful evidence includes user guides, communication assessments, portal usage data, feedback reports, accessibility audits and operational examples showing how digital engagement improved care planning or continuity.

Conclusion

Digital systems can strengthen family and carer involvement when they are flexible, accessible and supported by strong relational practice. They can improve transparency, continuity and communication, but only when providers recognise that digital confidence, access and caring circumstances vary significantly.

Providers that combine digital choice with accessible information, lawful information sharing, trained staff and continuous review are better placed to reduce exclusion and demonstrate meaningful social value. This ensures technology supports families and carers as genuine partners in care rather than creating another barrier to involvement.

---