A low score in the Systems Maintenance & Co-production Outcome Domain indicates significant shortcomings in fostering a collaborative and inclusive care environment. This scenario reflects a lack of effective participation, transparency, and innovation, adversely affecting the overall effectiveness and responsiveness of care services.
This situation is characterized by several key factors:
Traditional power differentials dominate decision-making processes, marginalizing the voices of service users and other stakeholders. Care strategies and policies are shaped without comprehensive input, leading to ineffective and unresponsive practices.
Care and support workers often feel excluded from the decision-making process. Their insights and experiences are undervalued, resulting in care plans that do not fully address the needs of the individuals they support.
"I feel like my input is often overlooked in decision-making processes. The top-down approach means that our on-the-ground insights are rarely considered."
Care receivers often feel excluded from the decision-making process. Their insights and preferences are undervalued, resulting in care plans that do not fully address their needs and preferences.
"I rarely get a say in the decisions that affect my care. It feels like decisions are made for me, not with me, which makes the care I receive feel impersonal and sometimes inadequate."
Friends, family, and volunteers often feel excluded from the decision-making process. Their insights and experiences are undervalued, resulting in care plans that do not fully address the needs of their loved ones.
"We feel excluded from important team decisions. Our insights and experiences are not valued, leading to care that doesn't fully address the team owners and team members needs."
In a circle with a low score, decision-making is primarily top-down, with minimal input from service users. Few circle members actively engage in the process. Strategies and policies are developed by a small group of leaders with little to no input from the broader circle. Consent-based decision-making is rarely used. Consequently, circle members feel disempowered and have little influence over decisions and changes, leading to low trust and engagement.
"In our circle, it feels like decision-making is mostly top-down, with hardly any input from us, the service users. Not many of us really get involved in the process. A small group of leaders seems to make all the strategies and policies without much input from the rest of us."
"We hardly ever really use consent-based decision-making. Because of this, we feel pretty disempowered and don’t have much say, which makes it hard to trust and stay engaged."
Roles and responsibilities are not clearly and/or are allocated based on hierarchical power structures rather than individual strengths and expertise. This results in inefficient task management, mismanagement of care activities, and poor coordination.
Care & Support workers notice that tasks are frequently assigned without considering who is best suited for them, leading to inefficiencies and frustrations. The lack of effective task management impacts the quality of care provided.
"Tasks are often assigned without considering who is best suited for them. This leads to inefficiencies and frustrations, as we're not always able to use our skills effectively."
Care receivers experience inconsistency in the care they receive due to poor task management. Tasks are often not assigned to the most suitable individuals, leading to suboptimal care and frustration.
"The care I receive is inconsistent. Sometimes tasks are not done properly because the person assigned isn't the best fit for the job, affecting the quality of my care."
Friends, Family, and Volunteers notice that care tasks are often disjointed and poorly managed. The lack of coordination and the improper allocation of responsibilities negatively impact the overall quality of care provided to their loved ones.
"The care provided can be disjointed and poorly managed. It seems like there's a lack of coordination, which impacts the overall quality of people's experience of care in the team."
In circles with low scores, task allocation is based on hierarchical positions rather than expertise, and processes are unclear and poorly documented. The circle struggles with coordination and communication, leading to inefficiencies and incomplete tasks. Skills and resources are underutilized. Circle members feel undervalued and disconnected, resulting in low morale and productivity.
"In our circle, tasks are handed out based on who’s higher up or the flavour of the month rather than who’s actually good at them, and the processes are pretty unclear and not well documented."
"We have a hard time coordinating and communicating as a team, which means things don’t get done efficiently or sometimes at all. We don’t make good use of our skills and available resources either. Because of all this, we often feel undervalued and disconnected, leading to low morale and productivity."
There are weak accountability mechanisms, with a lack of transparency and uneven distribution of responsibility. This erodes trust among stakeholders and fails to foster a reliable care environment.
Care and Support Workers find it challenging to trust the team and wider coop due to inconsistent accountability. Issues are often not addressed, promptly, transparently or fairly, leading to a sense of insecurity and dissatisfaction.
"There's little accountability for mistakes or poor performance. This lack of transparency and uneven responsibility makes it hard to trust that issues will be addressed fairly."
Care receivers find it difficult to trust the team or wider coop due to inconsistent accountability. When issues arise, they are often not addressed transparently or effectively, leading to uncertainty and dissatisfaction.
"When things go wrong, it's hard to know who to talk to or who is responsible. This lack of clarity makes me feel uneasy and uncertain about the care I'm receiving."
Friends, family, and volunteers find it difficult to trust the care system due to inconsistent accountability. Issues and concerns are not addressed transparently, leading to uncertainty and frustration.
"We feel that there is a lack of accountability within the team. It's difficult to get clear answers or see any improvements when we raise concerns."
Circles with low accountability scores show uneven accountability, with significant lapses. Transparency is low, leading to mistrust among members. Accountability mechanisms are weak or nonexistent, and feedback is rare and often ignored, with little follow-up on actions. Trust in the system is low, and reliability is frequently questioned.
"It feels like accountability is all over the place, with a lot of things slipping through the cracks. There isn’t much transparency, so it’s hard to trust what’s going on."
"The ways we’re supposed to hold each other accountable are either weak or just don’t exist, and feedback is rare and usually ignored with hardly any follow-up. Because of this, trust in the system is low, and we often question its reliability."
Innovation is stifled due to the concentration of power in a limited group, preventing the co-creation of responsive and innovative care practices. There is minimal collaborative effort to drive changes and develop new solutions.
Care & Support Workers feel that their ideas and suggestions for improving care are frequently ignored. The care system appears resistant to change, hindering the development of innovative solutions that could enhance care practices.
"Our suggestions for improvement are often ignored, which stifles innovation. We have ideas for better care practices, but there's no platform to share them."
Care receivers feel that their ideas and suggestions for improvement are frequently ignored. The care system appears resistant to change, hindering the development of innovative solutions that could enhance their quality of life.
"I don't have any oppiortunity to make positive changes or improvement in the care I receive happen. It feels like the system is stuck and unwilling to try new things that could make my life better."
Friends, Family, and Volunteers feel that their ideas and suggestions for improvement are often ignored. The care system appears resistant to change, hindering the development of innovative solutions that could enhance care quality.
"There seems to be little interest or opportunity to try new approaches or willingness to listen to our ideas."
Circles with low scores in change and innovation have minimal collaborative innovation, with change initiatives driven by a few individuals and little collaboration. Shared ownership of changes is rare. Innovation is infrequent, with limited feedback and adaptation. Connections to local resources and community networks are weak. Power dynamics heavily favor certain groups, stifling innovative ideas from less powerful stakeholders. Inclusivity is low, and the overall climate is resistant to change.
"In our circle, when we score low in change and innovation, it feels like there’s hardly any collaborative effort to bring about new ideas. Change initiatives are mostly driven by a few individuals, and there’s little collaboration. It’s rare to see shared ownership of any changes."
"Innovation happens infrequently, and we don’t get much opportunities to try out new things or adapt what we do to address new challeging situations."
"The power dynamics heavily favor certain groups, which stifles innovative ideas from the rest of us. Inclusivity is low, and overall, the climate feels resistant to change."
Overall, a low score reflects a social climate where traditional power dynamics limit the potential for effective and responsive care, leading to systemic barriers and a lack of stakeholder engagement.
