Covid recovery: learning from person-centred approaches

Key Policy Implications

• It is important to avoid using the term 'person-centred' in a tokenistic way. Person-centred approaches require significant resources, commitment, and leadership. There is a risk of disengagement and cynicism if the term is used inappropriately or indiscriminately.
• Person-centred approaches may be a means through which outcomes can be improved for those groups who have not previously been well served by public services.
• Public services can help facilitate person-centred approaches through moving away from short-term restrictive funding, thinking more creatively about reporting requirements and giving front-line staff greater autonomy to act.
• Power imbalances (between services and people) should be recognised and appropriately addressed in the development, delivery, and evaluation of policies.
• Greater emphasis needs to be given to co-production and choice in order to empower citizens and strengthen community cohesion and resilience.
• Person-centred approaches may require greater up-front investment of resources but have the potential to use personal and community resources and result in longer term preventative savings.
• Further research and evaluation is required in order to fully understand how the key attributes of person-centred approaches can support and improve outcomes in different contexts.
• Person-centred approaches may require us to re-think our approach to risk taking and accountability.
• Person-centred approaches are a means to achieve the public service reform ambitions articulated within the Christie Report. However, further guidance and support is likely to be required to facilitate adoption.