Digital Inclusion in Homecare: Making Technology Work for the People You Support

December 13, 2025

Digital technology is becoming an increasingly important part of domiciliary care, supporting electronic care planning, medication management, remote communication, visit monitoring and quality assurance. However, there is a growing risk that digital innovation benefits providers and commissioners more than the people receiving care if accessibility, consent and individual needs are not considered from the outset.

This article forms part of the Domiciliary Care & Homecare Services Knowledge Hub and complements our guidance on Digital Inclusion and Core Principles & Values, exploring how providers can ensure digital systems remain accessible, person-centred and inclusive while supporting high-quality homecare.

Many individuals supported by domiciliary care services have limited digital confidence, sensory impairments, learning disabilities, dementia, cognitive impairment, language barriers or physical conditions that make technology difficult to use independently. Commissioners increasingly expect providers to recognise these realities and demonstrate how digital tools enhance rather than reduce choice, dignity and autonomy.

Digital technology should adapt to the person receiving care rather than expecting the person to adapt to technology.

Why digital inclusion matters in homecare

Digital inclusion is about ensuring everyone can benefit from technology regardless of age, disability, confidence or communication needs. In domiciliary care, this means recognising that not every person will be able—or wish—to use digital systems in the same way.

If providers assume digital confidence without assessment, technology can unintentionally create barriers to care. Electronic communication may replace meaningful conversations, consent may be assumed rather than discussed and people may become increasingly dependent on others to access information about their own support.

Digital inclusion therefore supports person-centred care, safeguarding and equality. It ensures technology remains a tool that strengthens independence rather than creating additional disadvantage.

What digital exclusion looks like in practice

Digital exclusion is rarely intentional. More often, it develops gradually because technology is introduced without sufficient consideration of individual circumstances.

Common examples include:

Assuming people can read, hear or respond to digital prompts
Expecting consent through digital platforms without explanation
Relying on family members without clear agreement or consent
Using systems that are inaccessible for people with cognitive impairment
Providing information only through digital channels
Assuming everyone owns or can use smartphones or tablets

These issues can undermine dignity, autonomy, privacy and safeguarding. They may also reduce the person's ability to participate actively in decisions about their own care.

Assessing digital suitability as part of care planning

Digital tools should be introduced through the assessment and care planning process rather than imposed as the default option. Providers should explore whether technology genuinely benefits the individual and what support may be required to use it safely.

Assessment should consider:

What technology is being proposed and why
Whether the person understands and consents to its use
Any communication, sensory or cognitive barriers
What support is required to use technology safely
Whether family or advocates should be involved
What alternatives exist if technology becomes unavailable

This approach ensures technology supports the person's agreed outcomes rather than becoming an organisational convenience.

Operational example: introducing digital monitoring appropriately

A domiciliary care provider proposes using a medication reminder application alongside electronic care planning for an older person who occasionally forgets prescribed medicines. Rather than introducing the technology immediately, the assessor explores whether the person understands how it works, whether they are comfortable using it and whether it genuinely supports their independence.

During assessment it becomes clear that the person has deteriorating eyesight and limited confidence using smartphones. Rather than abandoning the idea completely, the provider works with the person to identify alternative options. Larger display settings, simplified reminders and support from familiar care workers are introduced alongside traditional medication prompts. Family members are involved only with the person's agreement and within clearly defined information-sharing arrangements.

The technology therefore complements care instead of replacing it. The assessment process ensures the solution reflects the person's preferences, abilities and desired outcomes rather than assuming digital confidence.

Role of families and advocates

Families and advocates often play an important role in helping people engage with digital technology, particularly where confidence, communication or cognitive ability is reduced. However, this involvement should always be explicit, proportionate and agreed wherever possible.

Providers should clarify:

Who receives digital alerts or updates
What information may be shared
How consent has been obtained and recorded
When advocates should be involved in decision-making
How family involvement supports rather than replaces the person's own voice

Commissioners increasingly expect transparency where family access is used to bridge digital barriers. Good practice ensures families strengthen inclusion without unintentionally reducing autonomy or privacy.

Accessible design in everyday practice

Digital inclusion is achieved through practical adjustments rather than expensive technology alone. Small changes to the way information is presented and support is delivered can make digital tools significantly more accessible for many people receiving domiciliary care.

Providers should consider:

Using plain language and avoiding technical terminology
Providing visual prompts, symbols or photographs where appropriate
Supporting consistent routines linked to digital reminders
Allowing additional time for explanation and decision-making
Offering information in accessible formats
Ensuring staff provide support rather than assuming independent technology use

Accessibility should be reviewed regularly because people's needs, confidence and abilities may change over time. What works well today may require adjustment in the future.

Operational example: adapting technology for communication needs

A person receiving homecare has mild dementia and limited confidence using digital devices. The provider introduces electronic appointment reminders, but staff soon notice that the reminders are being ignored because the individual does not recognise the notifications.

Rather than assuming non-compliance, the care coordinator reviews the situation with the person and family. Together they agree a simpler approach using larger icons, spoken reminders and reinforcement from care workers during visits. The reminders become part of a familiar daily routine instead of a standalone digital intervention.

This adjustment significantly improves engagement while maintaining the person's independence and dignity. It demonstrates that successful digital inclusion depends upon adapting technology to the individual rather than expecting the individual to adapt to the technology.

Safeguarding and digital inclusion

Digital exclusion can sometimes mask safeguarding risks. If technology replaces meaningful contact without considering individual needs, providers may overlook signs that someone is struggling, isolated or unable to engage with support.

Providers should monitor for:

Missed alerts or unacknowledged digital prompts
Repeated failure to engage with digital systems
Over-reliance on one family contact for communication
Reduced face-to-face contact justified solely by technology
Changes in behaviour or confidence linked to digital interventions

Technology should strengthen safeguarding oversight rather than dilute it. Digital systems should complement professional observation, relationship-based care and regular review.

Operational example: identifying safeguarding concerns through digital review

A provider notices that a person's digital wellbeing prompts have gone unanswered for several days. The system records the missed prompts, but staff also recognise that the individual has recently become quieter during visits and appears reluctant to discuss how they are managing.

Rather than assuming the technology has failed, the care coordinator reviews the wider context. During a face-to-face discussion it becomes apparent that the person's main family contact has been unwell, leaving them isolated and unsure how to access support.

The provider updates the care plan, arranges additional visits temporarily and reviews communication arrangements. This example demonstrates that digital information should always be interpreted alongside direct observation, professional judgement and meaningful conversation.

Commissioner and CQC expectations

Commissioners increasingly ask providers how digital systems remain person-centred and inclusive. They expect technology to support independence, improve communication and strengthen quality rather than replacing human interaction.

Commissioners are particularly interested in how providers:

Assess digital suitability during care planning
Protect consent, autonomy and confidentiality
Adapt technology to individual communication needs
Monitor whether digital interventions remain appropriate
Ensure technology complements rather than replaces care

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) also expects providers to deliver person-centred, responsive and well-led services. Digital inclusion contributes directly to these expectations because accessible technology supports involvement, choice, equality and safe care.

Governance and continuous improvement

Digital inclusion should form part of wider governance arrangements. Managers should review whether digital systems remain accessible, whether staff understand inclusive practice and whether technology continues to support positive outcomes.

Governance should include:

Regular review of digital inclusion within care plan audits
Staff training in accessible communication and digital support
Monitoring feedback from people receiving care and families
Review of incidents involving digital communication or accessibility
Learning from complaints and compliments relating to technology
Updating systems in response to changing needs and feedback

This demonstrates that digital inclusion is treated as an ongoing quality issue rather than a one-off implementation project.

How to evidence digital inclusion in tenders

High-scoring tenders explain how digital tools are introduced, reviewed and adapted to individual needs. Commissioners are reassured by practical examples showing that technology supports person-centred care instead of creating additional barriers.

Strong evidence may include:

Digital suitability assessments completed during care planning
Accessible communication options
Clear consent and information-sharing processes
Examples of technology adapted for individual needs
Regular review of digital interventions
Governance arrangements monitoring inclusion and accessibility

Providers should avoid assuming universal digital confidence. Demonstrating flexibility and individualised support will usually provide stronger assurance than describing the technology itself.

Common pitfalls

Introducing technology without assessing suitability
Assuming consent because technology is available
Replacing meaningful conversations with digital communication
Over-relying on family members without agreement
Failing to provide accessible formats
Reviewing digital performance without asking people about their experience
Treating digital inclusion as solely an IT responsibility

These pitfalls can unintentionally increase exclusion, reduce autonomy and weaken safeguarding. They may also undermine commissioner confidence because they suggest technology is driving care rather than supporting it.

Conclusion

Digital inclusion is now an essential component of high-quality domiciliary care. As technology becomes increasingly embedded within homecare services, providers must ensure digital systems remain accessible, understandable and responsive to individual needs.

The strongest organisations recognise that digital innovation succeeds only when it enhances person-centred care. By assessing suitability carefully, adapting technology appropriately, protecting consent and maintaining strong governance, providers can ensure digital tools strengthen independence, dignity and safety without leaving anyone behind.