Medium Score Interpretation
A medium score in the Systems Maintenance & Co-production Outcome Domain indicates moderate success in implementing co-production principles within the care setting, with room for improvement. This score suggests that while some collaborative structures are in place, they are not fully optimized or equitably distributed.
This situation is characterized by several key factors:
Inclusive decision-making processes are present but still influenced by residual power imbalances. Stakeholders have a voice, but their influence is inconsistent.
Care & Support Workers have occasional opportunities to contribute to decision-making, but their involvement is sporadic. While their insights are sometimes valued, the process lacks consistency.
"I sometimes get to participate in decision-making, but not always. There are still times when higher-ups make decisions without fully consulting us, which can be frustrating."
Care receivers occasionally have opportunities to contribute to decision-making, but their involvement is sporadic. While their insights are sometimes valued, the process lacks consistency and transparency.
"There are moments when I'm asked for my input, but it's not consistent. I wish my voice was heard more often and taken seriously in planning my care."
These stakeholders have occasional opportunities to contribute to decision-making, but their involvement is sporadic. While their insights are sometimes valued, the process lacks consistency.
"We occasionally have the opportunity to contribute to decisions, but it feels sporadic. Consistent inclusion would help us feel more involved and valued."
A circle with a medium score shows moderate participation in decision-making, where most members are involved, but some voices may dominate. Efforts are made to include all members, though implementation can be inconsistent. Strategies and policies involve input from diverse groups, but some decisions remain top-down. While consent-based decision-making is used, it is not always uniformly applied. Circle members have some influence over decisions and changes, but occasional power imbalances affect overall equity and trust in the process.
"Most of us do get to participate in decision-making, but sometimes a few voices dominate. We try to include everyone, though it doesn’t always work out evenly. Strategies and policies usually involve input from a mix of people, but some decisions still come from the top down."
"We use consent-based decision-making, but not consistently. As circle members, we have some say in our strategies, but occasional power imbalances can affect fairness and trust in the process."
There is some transparency and sharing of responsibilities in task management, but it is not fully optimized. Responsibilities are sometimes distributed based on strengths and expertise, leading to moderate effectiveness.
Care & Support Workers observe some improvement in task management but note that inefficiencies still exist. Tasks are not always assigned to the most suitable individuals, affecting overall coordination and quality of care.
"Task management is better than it used to be, but there are still inefficiencies. Sometimes tasks are assigned based on who is available rather than who is best suited for them."
Care receivers observe some improvement in task management but note that inefficiencies still exist. Tasks are not always assigned to the most suitable individuals, affecting the overall coordination and quality of care they receive.
"Care is generally okay, but there are still times when tasks are not handled by the right people, which can affect the quality of my care."
Friends, Family, and Volunteers observe some improvement in task management but note that inefficiencies still exist. Tasks are not always assigned to the most suitable individuals, affecting the overall coordination and quality of care.
"We see some improvement in how tasks are managed, but there's still room for more clarification around team members roles and responsibilities to address the needs of the team and better use of team member's skills and abilities"
Circles scoring medium show moderate transparency in task allocation, generally based on members' strengths, though some hierarchical influence remains. Processes are somewhat clear but not uniformly followed. Teams generally work well together, though occasional miscommunications or inefficiencies occur. Most tasks are completed effectively, using the skills and resources available within the circle and wider coop. While most circle members feel valued, some may feel their contributions are overlooked, affecting overall morale and productivity.
"There’s a decent level of transparency in how tasks are assigned, usually based on our strengths, but there’s still some influence from higher-ups."
"The processes are fairly clear but not always followed. Generally, we work well together as a team, though we do have the occasional miscommunication or inefficiency."
"Most tasks get done effectively, and we make quite good use of the skills and resources we have available within our circle and wider coop."
"Most of us feel valued, but some members might feel like their contributions are overlooked, which can affect overall morale and productivity."
Accountability mechanisms are in place but inconsistently enforced. Transparency exists, but occasional trust issues arise due to uneven distribution of responsibility.
Care & Support Workers recognize that while some issues are addressed properly, others are not. This inconsistency makes it challenging to fully trust the team and wider coop.
"There are accountability measures, but they are not always applied consistently. This inconsistency can create trust issues among staff and with care recipients."
Care receivers recognize that while some issues are addressed properly, others are not. This inconsistency makes it challenging to fully trust the care system and feel secure in their care.
"When things go wrong, sometimes it's addressed properly, but not always. This inconsistency makes me feel uncertain about how reliable the team and wider coop is."
Friends, Family, and Volunteers recognize that while some issues are addressed properly, others are not. This inconsistency makes it challenging to fully trust the team and wider coop.
"We notice that sometimes issues are handled well, but other times they are not. This inconsistency makes it hard to fully trust the team and co-operative."
Circles with medium scores in accountability show partial accountability, where most members are accountable, but some gaps exist. Transparency is moderate, with occasional lapses in communication. Accountability mechanisms are in place but not consistently applied, and feedback is sporadic and not always acted upon. Trust levels are generally good but can fluctuate, affecting overall reliability and accountability.
"Most of us are held accountable, but there are some gaps. Transparency is decent, but we sometimes have lapses in communication."
"We have accountability mechanisms, but they’re not always consistently applied, and feedback is hit or miss and not always followed up on."
"Trust levels are generally good but can go up and down, which affects overall reliability and accountability."
Innovation and change are partially embraced, with some collaborative efforts to develop new solutions. However, these initiatives may not be fully inclusive or consistently applied.
Care & Support Workers appreciate the new initiatives and changes being made but feel that their involvement is not consistently sought. More inclusive innovation processes are needed to ensure their voices are heard and valued.
"We are encouraged to share ideas for improvements, but not all suggestions are taken up. There's still room for more inclusive innovation processes."
Care receivers appreciate the new initiatives and changes being made but feel that their involvement is not consistently sought. More inclusive innovation processes are needed to ensure that their voices are heard and valued.
"I see some new initiatives and changes, which is positive, but not all of them include my input. It would be great to have more say in these innovations."
Friends, Family, and Volunteers appreciate the new initiatives and changes being made but feel that their involvement is not consistently sought. More inclusive innovation processes are needed to ensure that all voices are heard.
"We appreciate the new efforts and changes being made, but there's still a need for more consistent inclusion of all stakeholders in the innovation process."
Circles with medium scores in change and innovation show moderate collaboration in change initiatives, with some members more involved than others. Shared ownership of innovations is limited. Innovation occurs but is not consistent, and feedback is sometimes used to make improvements. Connections to local resources are moderate. Power dynamics are somewhat balanced, but certain groups may still dominate the innovation process, affecting overall inclusivity.
"We see some collaboration on change initiatives, but a few members tend to be more involved than others. Shared ownership of new ideas is somewhat limited. We do have innovation, but it’s not consistent, and we sometimes use feedback to make improvements."
"Our connections to local resources are decent. Power dynamics are fairly balanced, but certain groups still tend to dominate the innovation process, which affects overall inclusivity."
Overall, a medium score reflects a social climate with foundational elements for effective and responsive care, but highlights the need for more equitable and comprehensive approaches to fully support all stakeholders.
Last updated
Was this helpful?