Personalisation in Mental Health Services Beyond Care Planning
Personalisation is a longstanding principle within mental health policy, yet in practice it is frequently reduced to written care plans rather than embedded into day-to-day delivery. Commissioners increasingly expect providers to demonstrate how services flex around individual need, preference and circumstance while still operating within defined pathways and resource constraints. This article explores how personalisation operates beyond documentation, linking lived experience to real delivery decisions. It forms part of the wider discussion on co-production, lived experience and personalisation and how these principles function within established mental health service models and pathways.
Why care planning alone is not enough
While personalised care plans are essential, inspectors and commissioners now look for evidence that personalisation influences how services are delivered in practice. This includes appointment structures, intervention choices, communication methods and escalation responses.
Personalisation without operational flexibility risks becoming performative rather than meaningful.
Operational example 1: Flexible appointment models
Context: A community mental health service struggled with non-attendance and disengagement.
Support approach: Individuals were offered choice around appointment timing, location and format, including digital or community-based sessions.
Day-to-day delivery: Care coordinators had delegated authority to adjust schedules without senior approval, within defined parameters.
Evidence of effectiveness: Attendance rates improved and discharge due to disengagement reduced.
Balancing personal choice with clinical and safeguarding responsibility
Personalisation does not remove professional responsibility for safety or outcomes. Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate how they balance individual preference with clinical judgment, particularly where risk is present.
This balance must be transparent and consistently applied.
Operational example 2: Personalised intervention selection
Context: Individuals declined standard group-based interventions.
Support approach: Alternative one-to-one or creative therapies were offered where clinically appropriate.
Day-to-day delivery: Decisions were documented with rationale linked to outcomes and risk assessments.
Evidence of effectiveness: Improved engagement and reported outcomes.
Commissioner expectation: demonstrable flexibility within pathways
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to show how pathways allow for variation without undermining equity or cost control. Personalisation should not depend on individual staff discretion alone.
Regulator expectation: people experience real choice
Regulator expectation (CQC): Inspectors assess whether people feel listened to and experience genuine choice, not just whether policies reference personalisation.
Operational example 3: Personalised crisis response planning
Context: Repeated crisis presentations resulted in distress and escalation.
Support approach: Crisis responses were tailored to individual triggers and preferences.
Day-to-day delivery: Plans were used consistently across teams.
Evidence of effectiveness: Reduced crisis admissions.
Governance structures that support personalisation
Effective personalisation requires delegated authority, clear escalation routes and regular review. Without governance, flexibility becomes inconsistent and unsafe.
Providers that embed personalisation into governance frameworks demonstrate maturity and system awareness.