What changed after people spoke up?

What we found in the news

NHS England’s Working in Partnership with People and Communities (opens in a new tab), issued in July 2022, sets out an ambition for a health and care system that:

“provides clear feedback about how people’s involvement leads to improvement”

— NHS England, Setting the ambition, page 15

The document has a specific role in England’s NHS arrangements. Here, we are considering the practical leadership question it raises for other care and community organizations: after someone contributes, can they see what happened next? The examples below are our own illustrations, not results reported in the guidance.

Why this matters to us

A completed survey is a piece of work for the person answering it. They have paused, remembered an experience, and decided what to tell you. That contribution deserves a clear place in the organization’s work.

Consider an illustrative community program reviewing its opening times. Some participants want a later start. A family supporter is trying to coordinate transport. Staff know that moving one session may affect another group’s room booking.

At genus, we see an opportunity to bring that knowledge into the decision while it can still change the options. Collecting comments after the timetable is fixed offers much less room to act.

Begin with a decision people can influence

Be specific about what is open for discussion. In our illustrative program, the team might be able to adjust the start of one weekly activity, but not extend the building’s opening hours. Say so before asking people to spend time developing suggestions.

Explain who will decide, what other information they need, and when a response is expected. If those arrangements are unclear inside the organization, settle them before launching another questionnaire.

Offer ways to contribute that fit the people affected. Some may prefer a short conversation, an accessible written option, or support to describe their experience. Others may choose not to participate. A digital response should not be the only way to be heard.

Notice who is missing. People who stopped attending may have useful knowledge about the timetable, even if they no longer see the noticeboard.

Put the feedback beside the practical constraints

Bring the suggestions to the people responsible for the decision. Ask what each contribution helps the team understand. A preference for a later start may reflect transport availability, a personal routine, or the appeal of a different activity. Those are worth distinguishing before designing a solution.

Keep differences visible. There may be no single start time that suits everyone. A summary that reports only the most common answer can hide a serious difficulty affecting a smaller group.

For a modest change, the team might agree a short trial with the participants affected. Identify what they want to learn, how people can report a difficulty, and when the arrangement will be reviewed.

This is also a place for leaders to be candid. If money, staffing, or a shared building limits the options, explain the constraint plainly. Do not invite people to approve a decision that has already been made and then describe it as theirs.

Return with an answer people can use

A useful response connects the contribution with the decision. Describe what was raised, what the team decided, and the reason. Include suggestions that could not be taken forward, without identifying individuals or exposing private information.

Make the response available through the routes people actually use. A website update alone may miss the person who contributed during a conversation at reception.

Then ask about the result. In the timetable example, the important question is whether the new arrangement works in daily life. Did it solve the difficulty that prompted the discussion? Did it introduce a different one?

Leave room to change course. Explaining that a trial needs another adjustment can be a useful sign that the conversation is continuing.

What this means for the people you serve

Participants, families, and volunteers bring knowledge about how a service fits their lives. Make it possible to contribute without promising that every suggestion will be adopted. They should be able to find the response and understand how to raise a remaining concern.

The genus connection

Today, configured genus community tools can present resources and questions and collect supported feedback responses. The available channels and permissions depend on the organization’s setup.

Those capabilities can support a listening process; they do not establish that a manager has read a response or acted on it. Our lessons learned put attention on practical use and continued improvement. The organization still needs people responsible for reviewing contributions, making decisions, and replying.

One question for your next team meeting

Can we choose one recent piece of feedback and show the person who offered it what happened next?