Ask what the supporter can realistically offer

What we found in the news

NICE's 2020 guidance on supporting adult carers (opens in a new tab) explains why an assessment should consider a carer's own circumstances. Its discussion warns against assumptions about:

“how willing or able a carer is”

— NICE, NG150, rationale for preparing and carrying out a carer's assessment

The guidance sits within England's care-assessment framework. We are revisiting its practical principle, rather than describing a universal legal process: a person's relationship to someone receiving care does not establish the support they can provide.

Why this matters to us

In an illustrative planning conversation, a person's son agrees to help with a weekly appointment. The record later describes him as available for transport. Another service reads that as a standing arrangement.

The son may work shifts, have children to collect or be managing his own health. The person receiving care may also prefer a different option on some days.

At genus, we are interested in making the actual agreement clear. Support can be offered with care and still have limits. Those limits are part of the plan, not evidence that someone is insufficiently committed.

Ask about a particular contribution

A broad question about whether family can help can produce an answer that means different things to different people.

Name the task and timing. Is the supporter agreeing to one appointment, a regular journey or help making a booking? What preparation or information do they need?

Give them room to explain what is manageable. Where appropriate, offer a separate conversation so they can discuss their own circumstances without pressure. Include the person receiving care in decisions about their support, while respecting each person's privacy.

Professional assessments, entitlements and decisions about service provision belong with the relevant team. The practical questions here support an accurate conversation; they do not replace those processes.

If the plan depends on help that has not been agreed, record the uncertainty and bring it to the responsible person.

Notice the work around the named task

Taking someone to an appointment may involve time off work, waiting, parking, communication with several services and rearranging another responsibility.

Ask which parts the supporter is actually taking on. Do not assume that agreeing to the journey includes interpreting clinical advice, coordinating every follow-up or providing additional personal care.

In our illustrative situation, the son might be able to do the outward trip but need a different arrangement for the return. Naming that detail early gives the team a more accurate picture of the day.

The person receiving support may have ideas about alternatives. They might prefer another transport option or want help exploring a different appointment time. Their contribution can change the arrangement rather than simply confirm what others proposed.

Make changing the agreement possible

A supporter's circumstances can change suddenly or gradually. Tell people how to raise a change and what the service will do with that information.

Avoid treating an old contact entry as evidence of continuing availability. Check the arrangement at relevant transitions and reviews, and when either person asks.

Managers can consider how staff distinguish agreed support from hoped-for support in records. A short, accurate description of the commitment may be more useful than a general statement that family is involved.

Also notice when one supporter has become the default organizer across several services. Coordination itself takes time. If each team assigns a small task to the same person, the combined workload may be invisible to all of them.

A shared discussion can reveal that load, although it cannot guarantee that additional services are available. The first step is an honest account of what the plan requires.

The genus connection

Today, configured genus care-community calendars and tasks can help make agreed activities and responsibilities easier to revisit. Communication tools can support the people included in the organization's care community.

Assigning a task does not establish that an unpaid supporter has accepted it or is able to carry it out. Teams need their own process for confirming agreement, reviewing access and responding when circumstances change.

We see a useful role for technology in making the real arrangement visible. It should help people coordinate the support they have chosen and can manage, rather than quietly adding work because a name is available in a list.

One question to take away

Which part of your current care plan depends on unpaid support that someone still needs to ask about directly?