Evidencing Co-Production for CQC: What Inspectors Look For and How to Prove It

February 2, 2026

Co-production is now a familiar term in adult social care, but during inspection it is often tested in a very practical way: can you show what changed because people told you what mattered to them? Providers who present co-production as a set of meetings or a survey programme can struggle if there is no clear line from lived experience to decisions, practice changes, and monitored outcomes. This article explains how service user feedback and co-production can be evidenced through quality standards and assurance frameworks so managers, leaders, and teams can demonstrate credible, inspection-ready learning.

How inspection questions tend to land in practice

Inspectors rarely ask “Do you do co-production?” as a standalone question. Instead, they test co-production through everyday lines of enquiry, such as:

How do people influence their care and support plans?
How do you know people feel safe and listened to?
How does the service respond when someone is unhappy?
How are restrictive practices reduced and reviewed with the person?

Your evidence needs to work at three levels at once: individual, service, and organisational governance. If one level is weak, co-production can look like a slogan rather than a method.

Building an inspection-ready “evidence chain”

A useful way to prepare is to document an evidence chain that shows:

Input: what people said (feedback, views, lived experience).
Decision: what was agreed and why (risk, priorities, proportionality).
Action: what changed in day-to-day practice (staff guidance, plans, routines, environments).
Review: how you checked the change worked (audits, outcomes, follow-up feedback).

This chain should appear in supervision notes, care planning records, quality meeting minutes, audits, and governance reports. That “repeatable trail” is what makes co-production defensible.

Operational example 1: Co-produced support planning that changed daily routines

Context: A person supported in a shared supported living setting repeatedly declined planned community activities and became distressed during transitions. Staff interpreted this as “non-engagement,” and the support plan focused on prompting and encouragement.

Support approach: The team reframed the situation as a quality-of-life and anxiety issue, and used structured co-production to redesign routines with the person, using accessible communication and agreed decision-making steps.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff held short, predictable planning sessions at the same time each week, using visuals to explore what made activities difficult (noise, unpredictability, transport). Together, they co-designed a “choice pathway” for mornings: the person selected from two options, staff used a calm preparation script, and transitions were supported with a timed routine and an agreed exit strategy. The plan was recorded in the person’s preferred format and embedded into daily notes with prompts for staff consistency.

How effectiveness or change was evidenced: Distress-related incidents reduced, engagement increased on chosen activities, and the person reported feeling more in control. Spot checks confirmed staff were following the co-produced script, and follow-up feedback was recorded and reviewed in monthly plan reviews.

Operational example 2: Co-producing restrictive practice reduction

Context: A service used a blanket kitchen-access restriction during evenings to reduce risks associated with unsafe appliance use. Several people described this as unfair and infantilising.

Support approach: Leaders treated feedback as a restriction governance issue and initiated a co-produced restriction review, balancing safety with rights and autonomy.

Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff gathered lived experience views using accessible questions and recorded what “good” would look like for each person. The team conducted individual risk assessments with the person, identified skill-building needs, and co-designed proportionate alternatives: supported access times, visual prompts for appliance safety, and staff presence during specific tasks rather than locked doors. Restriction rationales, consent discussions, and review dates were documented, and staff received clear guidance on how to implement the new approach consistently.

How effectiveness or change was evidenced: Restrictions were reduced and individualised without increased incidents. Governance records showed decision-making, review meetings, and evidence of learning. People reported improved dignity and independence, which was captured in follow-up feedback and quality-of-life measures.

Operational example 3: Evidence of service-wide change from feedback themes

Context: Feedback across multiple services highlighted that people did not always understand what would happen after an incident or when a concern was raised. Families said communication felt unclear, and people felt anxious.

Support approach: The provider treated this as a service-wide learning theme and co-produced a consistent communication approach, ensuring it was tested and assured.

Day-to-day delivery detail: A small co-production group helped develop an “after an incident” communication leaflet in accessible formats and a staff checklist. The checklist included immediate reassurance, explanation of next steps, how the person could contribute to learning, and when they would receive an update. Managers integrated the checklist into incident review processes and supervision. Spot checks tested whether staff followed the approach, and people were asked directly whether they understood what happened and what changed.

How effectiveness or change was evidenced: Feedback improved, repeated concerns reduced, and audits confirmed consistent practice. Governance reports showed the theme, actions, assurance checks, and ongoing review.

Making co-production visible in documentation without making it bureaucratic

Inspection-ready evidence does not require long paperwork; it requires consistent signals across records. Useful, proportionate indicators include:

Care plan sections that show “what matters to me” and how it was agreed.
Records of consent, choices offered, and how preferences are supported on difficult days.
Review notes showing what changed and how it was tested.
Quality meeting minutes where feedback themes lead to tracked actions.

Commissioner expectation: demonstrable responsiveness and credible assurance

Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect co-production to be more than engagement activity. They look for evidence that feedback leads to changes in practice, that risks are managed proportionately, and that providers can demonstrate outcomes and learning through clear assurance.

Regulator / inspector expectation: person-centred, responsive, and well-led practice

Regulator / inspector expectation (CQC): Inspectors expect to see person-centred practice grounded in lived experience, alongside leadership that listens, learns, and improves. Providers should be able to show co-production at individual level, service level, and governance level, with clear evidence that change is reviewed and sustained.