Ask who the person wants in the conversation

What we found in the news

In its 2018 guidance on people's experience of adult social care (opens in a new tab), NICE asks services to check at first contact how a person wants others involved. The same recommendation also asks teams to revisit that preference:

“Review this regularly (at least every 6 to 12 months), or when requested.”

— NICE, NG86, recommendation 1.1.14

The recommendation also includes family, friends, advocates and other people of the person's choosing. We are revisiting a principle from established guidance, rather than reporting a new finding: involvement begins with the person's wishes.

Why this matters to us

There is a difference between having someone's telephone number and understanding their place in a care conversation.

In an illustrative planning meeting, a person might want their neighbor present because that neighbor knows the local transport routes. They may prefer to discuss a separate health question privately. Another person might want a relative to help remember the discussion, while speaking for themselves.

At genus, we see those distinctions as part of making support useful. The person receiving care should have room to shape who is involved and how. A familiar relationship does not automatically explain the role someone wants that relationship to play today.

Ask about the role, as well as the name

Before a meeting, explain what will be discussed and ask whether the person would like anyone involved. Make room for a friend, advocate or another chosen supporter; do not assume the answer must be a family member.

Then clarify the practical contribution. Is the supporter there to help with communication, remember information, explain an arrangement or take an agreed action afterward?

A person may want someone to listen without receiving all future updates. They may want help preparing questions but prefer to attend alone. These are different choices, and a single contact field will not capture all of them.

Follow the organization's consent, capacity and safeguarding procedures. The planning suggestions here do not establish a legal right to receive information or make decisions for someone else. Where authority or information sharing is uncertain, the responsible team needs to resolve it through the appropriate process.

Keep the person in the exchange

An extra voice can make a conversation richer. It can also make it easier for professionals and supporters to talk past the person whose care is being discussed.

Notice where the questions are directed. Give the person time to answer using their preferred communication method. Invite a supporter to add context where that is welcome, without treating the addition as a substitute for the person's view.

For the transport example, the neighbor might know that a particular bus stop has no shelter. The person may still prefer that route because it lets them meet a friend. Both pieces of information can shape a more useful discussion.

If views differ, record the difference accurately rather than smoothing it into an agreement that did not happen. Clinical decisions, capacity questions and conflicts need the relevant professional process. A meeting summary should help that process, not conceal uncertainty.

Check the arrangement when life changes

Support networks change. Someone may start a new job, move away or become unavailable. The person receiving care may simply want a different arrangement.

A transition between services is a sensible moment to check what is still wanted and workable. Tell the person how to request a change outside a planned review.

Also ask the supporter what they have agreed to do. Being invited to a meeting does not mean accepting responsibility for transport, daily care or follow-up. If a plan depends on their contribution, confirm that contribution specifically.

Managers can review whether staff know where current involvement preferences are kept. Information copied from an old referral may no longer reflect the person's wishes. Correcting that matters more than completing another generic contact list.

The genus connection

Today, genusConnect community tools can support communication and coordination among the people included in a configured care community. Which people can access which information depends on the organization's setup and permissions.

A platform invitation is not a substitute for agreeing the person's involvement preferences. Teams still need to confirm the appropriate audience before sharing a reviewed update, and to manage changes through their established process.

For us, a useful digital connection begins with a human agreement: who is welcome in this conversation, and what are they helping with?

One question to take away

Does your team know who the person wants involved today—and what they want that person involved in?