Person-Centred Technology in Adult Social Care: Enabling Choice, Control and Independence
Share
Person-centred technology in adult social care is most effective when it is designed around people, not systems. Used well, digital tools can increase independence, strengthen choice and control, and reduce unnecessary restrictions. Used poorly, technology risks becoming another form of surveillance or task management that undermines dignity. For providers seeking to embed technology ethically and effectively, success depends on aligning digital enablement with person-centred values and clear governance. This approach closely links with Person-Centred Technology principles and the wider context of Digital Care Planning.
What person-centred technology really means in practice
Person-centred technology refers to digital tools that support an individual’s goals, preferences and outcomes rather than organisational convenience. This includes assistive technology, communication tools, digital care records and monitoring solutions, but only where they are clearly linked to a person’s wishes and assessed needs.
In practice, this means technology is introduced through conversation and co-production, not default installation. Individuals are involved in decisions about whether technology is used, how it operates, and how it may change over time. Importantly, technology must be reviewed regularly as part of support planning, just like any other element of care.
Real-world operational examples
Example 1: Supporting independence through assistive technology
A supported living provider introduced smart medication prompts for an individual who wanted to manage their own medicines. Rather than staff administering medication, the system provided reminders and alerts only if doses were missed. This enabled independence while maintaining safety and was clearly recorded as a least restrictive option.
Example 2: Enhancing communication and choice
A provider supporting people with communication needs implemented tablet-based communication aids linked to daily routines and preferences. Individuals used visual prompts to express choices about meals, activities and routines, reducing frustration and increasing meaningful engagement.
Example 3: Proportionate monitoring aligned to outcomes
In a mental health service, discreet door sensors were used overnight to support sleep safety for a person with a history of night-time wandering. The technology was time-limited, reviewed monthly, and removed once risks reduced, demonstrating proportionate and outcome-led use.
Commissioner and regulator expectations
Commissioners increasingly expect technology to demonstrate value beyond efficiency. They look for clear links between digital tools and outcomes such as independence, reduced support hours, improved wellbeing and safer transitions. Evidence should show how technology supports Care Act wellbeing principles rather than simply reducing costs.
Regulators such as the CQC expect providers to evidence that technology is used ethically and proportionately. Inspectors will look for clear consent processes, Mental Capacity Act considerations, and documentation showing that digital solutions do not replace human support where it remains necessary.
Governance and assurance arrangements
Strong governance is essential to ensure technology remains person-centred. Providers should have clear policies covering assessment, consent, data protection, review and escalation. Digital tools should be included in risk assessments and support plans, with defined triggers for review or removal.
Assurance mechanisms may include regular audits of technology use, service user feedback, and oversight by senior leaders to ensure alignment with organisational values. This demonstrates that technology is actively managed rather than passively deployed.
Safeguarding, risk and least restrictive practice
Technology must support positive risk-taking rather than risk avoidance. Providers should evidence how digital solutions reduce restrictions and promote autonomy, rather than introduce new forms of control. Where monitoring is used, it should always be the least intrusive option and subject to time-bound review.
Outcomes and impact
When implemented well, person-centred technology can lead to measurable outcomes such as increased independence, reduced reliance on staff support, improved confidence and stronger engagement in daily life. These outcomes should be clearly tracked and reviewed as part of quality assurance and commissioning reporting.
💼 Rapid Support Products (fast turnaround options)
- ⚡ 48-Hour Tender Triage
- 🆘 Bid Rescue Session – 60 minutes
- ✍️ Score Booster – Tender Answer Rewrite (500–2000 words)
- 🧩 Tender Answer Blueprint
- 📝 Tender Proofreading & Light Editing
- 🔍 Pre-Tender Readiness Audit
- 📁 Tender Document Review
🚀 Need a Bid Writing Quote?
If you’re exploring support for an upcoming tender or framework, request a quick, no-obligation quote. I’ll review your documents and respond with:
- A clear scope of work
- Estimated days required
- A fixed fee quote
- Any risks, considerations or quick wins