Make room for the work between appointments

What we found in the news

NHS England and NHS Improvement’s 2019 demand-and-capacity guidance (opens in a new tab) asks services to identify:

“resources that are necessary for the service to run”

— Core model technical guidance, section 3.10

The model was developed for particular elective-care pathways. We are borrowing a practical question from that older guidance, rather than recommending its calculations for every community program: what has to be available for a booked activity to happen?

Why this matters to us

An appointment on a screen has a beginning and an end. The work around it is less tidy.

Consider a hypothetical community service arranging introductory visits. A coordinator prepares information, checks an access request, welcomes the visitor, answers a supporter’s question, and records what was agreed afterward. Only the visit itself appears as a colored block on the calendar.

At genus, we want the tools around care to reflect that fuller day. Otherwise, an apparently spare half-hour can become a promise that depends on someone finding time they do not have.

Follow the work around one ordinary visit

Start with a recent, typical arrangement. Ask the people who prepare it what happens before the participant arrives and after they leave. Include the work done by reception, administration, and colleagues outside the immediate program team.

Distinguish tasks that happen for every visit from those needed only sometimes. A familiar participant returning to a regular activity may need different preparation from someone visiting for the first time. Avoid turning either example into the standard for everybody.

Notice the work that is hard to schedule precisely. A person may need more time to understand an option or communicate a preference. A supporter may raise a practical question that changes the arrangement.

The aim is to understand where time goes and what makes it vary. It is not a request for colleagues to justify every minute of conversation.

Give the necessary work a place in the plan

In our hypothetical service, the team could reserve preparation time for introductory visits and identify who handles the follow-up. The actual arrangement needs to fit the service’s responsibilities, staffing, and participants.

Ask whether a named person can carry out the task at the point it is needed. Two colleagues may both have time during the week, but neither may be available when a particular room or interpreter can be booked.

Keep assumptions visible. If a plan depends on a transport confirmation, mark it as unresolved until the responsible colleague has checked. A note that something needs arranging is not the arrangement itself.

This discussion can also expose a process problem. If staff spend their preparation time searching for an approved document, better access may help. If the work requires more skilled staff time than the service has, a tidier calendar will not supply it.

Review the pressure points without rewarding rescue work

Look at a small run of ordinary days. Where did preparation spill into the welcome? Which follow-ups were postponed? Did colleagues routinely skip breaks or carry unfinished work home?

Invite an honest account of how the day was managed. Praising people for constantly rescuing an unrealistic timetable can make it harder to change that timetable.

Decide what needs a local adjustment and what needs a leadership decision. Some work may be shared differently. Some commitments may need revising. A proposed extra place should include consideration of the work around it, as well as the space in the room.

Return to the plan after a reasonable trial. Changes in the people attending, staff experience, or service offer can make an earlier estimate less useful.

What this means for the people you serve

Preparation and follow-up are part of someone’s experience of a service. People should have time to ask about their options and understand what was agreed. Include their account when reviewing whether the timetable works, especially when the visible visit seems efficient but the next step remains unclear.

The genus connection

Today, configured genus care-team tools can support reservations, participant context, and recorded activity. Available community tasks and calendars can help organize agreed follow-up.

These capabilities depend on modules, permissions, and local workflows. A reservation view does not establish how much staff time an individual arrangement requires. We see a useful role for the tools in bringing relevant work into view so people can make a better-informed plan.

One question for your next team meeting

Which necessary task around a booked visit is missing from the way we currently plan time?