Embedding Personalisation Through Co-Produced Mental Health Support Plans
Personalisation is now embedded across commissioning frameworks, Care Act guidance and mental health policy, yet in practice many support plans still reflect professional priorities more than lived experience. Commissioners and inspectors increasingly expect providers to demonstrate how people shape their own support, how risk is managed collaboratively, and how personalisation remains consistent across teams. This article explores how providers embed co-production within co-production, lived experience and personalisation while remaining aligned to mental health service models and pathways and accountable governance.
Personalisation beyond choice lists
True personalisation goes beyond offering menu-style choices. It requires understanding what matters to the person, how they experience distress, what supports their recovery, and how risk can be managed without defaulting to restriction. Operationally, this means:
- support planning that starts with lived priorities, not services
- explicit discussion of risk tolerance and shared responsibility
- clear links between goals, daily support and outcomes
- regular review driven by the person, not just professionals
Operational example 1: Co-produced support planning in supported accommodation
Context: A supported accommodation service found that support plans were technically compliant but poorly used. Staff described them as “paper exercises” and people reported they did not recognise themselves in their plans.
Support approach: The provider redesigned its support planning process with lived experience contributors. The focus shifted from tasks to outcomes, with explicit space for personal meaning, preferences and fears.
Day-to-day delivery: Initial planning sessions were extended and structured around guided conversations: what a good day looks like, early signs of deterioration, what helps when distressed, and what support feels intrusive. Staff were trained to document in the person’s language and to agree risk responses collaboratively. Plans were then used actively in handovers and supervision.
Evidence of effectiveness: The service recorded improved engagement with planning reviews, fewer complaints about staff control, and clearer risk responses during incidents. Audits showed plans were referenced in daily notes rather than stored unused.
Commissioner expectation: personalisation linked to outcomes
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect personalisation to be outcome-focused, not descriptive. Support plans should clearly link personalised goals to funded support and show how progress is reviewed. Where personalisation is limited by risk or resource constraints, this should be transparently explained and recorded.
Risk, safeguarding and positive risk-taking
Personalisation and risk are inseparable. Co-produced planning strengthens safeguarding when it explicitly addresses risk triggers, early warning signs and preferred responses. Providers should evidence:
- capacity assessments where relevant
- clear recording of shared risk decisions
- escalation routes when risk increases
- alignment with safeguarding and crisis procedures
Operational example 2: Personalised crisis response plans
Context: Crisis responses varied depending on which staff were on duty, leading to inconsistent escalation and avoidable distress.
Support approach: The provider co-produced individual crisis response plans with people supported, focusing on early intervention and least restrictive options.
Day-to-day delivery: Each plan included preferred de-escalation approaches, who to involve, what language to avoid, and when emergency services should be contacted. Plans were reviewed after any crisis and updated collaboratively. Staff were trained to prioritise these plans during escalation.
Evidence of effectiveness: The provider recorded reduced police involvement, fewer restraint incidents and improved confidence among staff and people supported. Crisis learning was reviewed under governance and linked to safeguarding assurance.
Regulator expectation: plans are lived, not filed
Regulator expectation (CQC): Inspectors assess whether care and support plans genuinely reflect the person and guide practice. They test whether staff know the plan, follow it in real situations, and update it when circumstances change.
Operational example 3: Personalisation embedded into supervision
Context: Supervision focused heavily on tasks and incidents, with little reflection on whether support remained personalised.
Support approach: The provider introduced co-produced supervision prompts centred on personalisation and lived experience.
Day-to-day delivery: Supervisors asked staff to reflect on how support aligned with the person’s stated priorities, how choices were offered, and where practice drifted into routine. Themes were captured and reviewed at service level.
Evidence of effectiveness: Supervision records demonstrated reflective practice, and inspection feedback noted staff could clearly describe how they tailored support to individuals.
Making personalisation defensible
Personalisation is strongest when it is structured, reviewed and evidenced. Providers who embed co-production into planning, risk management and supervision are better placed to demonstrate safe, person-centred practice under scrutiny.