11 November 2025
By Deborah Rozansky, SCIE Director of Policy, Research and Information and Martin Lowthian, The Access Group Quality and Compliance Specialist.
The promise of technology to transform social care has never been greater—from expanding access to care and support to improving care quality and people’s experiences. At our second roundtable in our four-part series on national care standards, we brought the sector together to grapple with fundamental questions about how to achieve the potential of technology in social care.
Effective national standards must be measurable and capable of supporting continuous improvement. Yet, the adult social care sector has historically struggled with fragmented data, underdeveloped digital infrastructure and inconsistent measurement practices.
The use of digital tools, from care-management platforms to integrated care systems, is increasing across adult social care. But data use does not always align with person-centred outcomes or offer genuine accessibility to those who draw on care and support. Efforts such as Think Local Act Personal’s Data for People illustrate how co-production in technology development can improve both adoption and usefulness. Equally important is understanding how people themselves interact with digital or assistive technologies— for self-management, communication or daily living—and addressing barriers such as digital exclusion, accessibility and consent in ways that respect individual rights and autonomy.
Building on existing initiatives and frameworks, there is potential for data to support transparency and accountability while enabling providers and commissioners to drive improvement.
Emerging technologies, including predictive analytics and AI, offer further opportunities to anticipate care needs and support early intervention. However, these must be underpinned by ethical use of data, clear governance and measures that reflect what truly matters to people who draw on care and support.
Embedding technology and data at the heart of national standards offers a route to a more evidence-led, person-centred care system—fit for the future and focused on improving lives. This is where the roundtable discussions started.
The roundtable participants debated issues of data ownership, control and the infrastructure required for achieving personalised care. Legally, individuals own their personal data under GDPR, but participants questioned whether this ownership feels real to people receiving care, where they have no ability to review or contribute to their individual care records.
The issues are not simply about technical infrastructure—but about power, trust and agency. Several participants emphasised that whilst we frequently use the language of “empowerment,” what people actually need is agency: the space, resources and trust to exercise control over their own information and care.
During the discussions, several critical elements were identified for building the right infrastructure:
Trust and transparency through co-production. People need to understand not just that their data is being collected, but why, how it will be used and what benefits it will bring—both to them individually and to the wider care system. As one participant observed, we need “informed consent, not just consent”—people must understand what they’re agreeing to.
Interoperability and expanding the use of shared care records. Despite years of effort, we still have situations where different departments in the same hospital can’t share patient information, let alone achieve seamless data flow between health and social care. Minimum standards for interoperability are still required. Yet participants shared examples of progress: when care providers demonstrated the value of shared data through tangible insights, reluctant organisations suddenly became eager to participate.
Collecting the right data to balances the need for regulatory consistency with operational innovation. As one participant noted, “We need regulation, but we don’t want to create an industry where suddenly it becomes over-regulated and kills innovation.” The solution may lie in what several called “standards light”—clear minimum requirements that leave room for innovation above the baseline.
A new model of data governance with user involvement. Participants discussed innovative approaches, including data commons where communities collectively own and benefit from their data, and trusted research environments where data can be used for the public good whilst maintaining privacy. The key is ensuring people who draw on care and support are genuinely involved in governance, not just consulted after decisions are made.
Financial sustainability to underpin local technology choices and infrastructure. Local authorities facing budget crises struggle to invest in preventative technology that might save money in five years’ time. Without addressing this fundamental challenge, even the best technical infrastructure will fail to deliver its potential.
Perhaps the most passionate discussions centred on ensuring technology enhances rather than replaces human connections in care. We heard concerning examples of care workers feeling “dictated by this thing in their hand,” rushing through visits because their electronic monitoring system tells them they’re running late for the next appointment.
Yet we also heard inspiring examples of technology creating time for what matters. AI-powered note-taking can free care workers from paperwork to focus on relationship building. Predictive analytics can identify people at risk of falls before they happen. Wearable devices can provide reassurance to families while maintaining independence for individuals.
The key insight? Technology works best when it’s designed with and for the people who will use it—not just managers or commissioners, but care workers and, crucially, people receiving care themselves.
A recurring theme throughout our discussions was the fundamental mismatch between what we measure and what actually matters.
This fixation on outputs—counting tasks completed, forms filled, systems implemented—actively works against the personalised, relationship-based care everyone agrees we need. Several participants shared frustrating examples: local authorities celebrating that care visits happened on time whilst missing that people felt rushed and unheard; providers ticking boxes for “activities delivered” while failing to ask whether those activities helped someone achieve their goals.
The shift we need is fundamental: from measuring what the system does to measuring what difference it makes to people’s lives.
Critically, this isn’t about collecting more data—it’s about collecting the right data. As one participant observed: “There is no accountability mechanism to say social workers input data because they want to get packages commissioned, the NHS inputs data because they’re scheduled. None of it is really about the person.”
The challenge for national standards is clear: how do we create frameworks that incentivise and measure what truly matters—whether people are living the lives they choose—whilst avoiding the trap of reducing complex human experiences to simplified metrics? The answer, participants suggested, lies in co-production at every level, ensuring those who draw on care and support don’t just receive services but actively shape how success is defined and measured.
Three priority areas emerged for developing meaningful national standards around data and technology:
These priorities aren’t separate initiatives but interconnected requirements for a care system that is both digitally enabled and deeply human.
As we prepare for our third roundtable on integration and system alignment across health and care, one message rings clear: technology and data are not ends in themselves but tools that should serve a greater purpose—enabling people to live the lives they choose, with the support they need, in the places they call home.
The challenge isn’t primarily technical. We have the technology. We increasingly have the data. What we need now is the collective will to redesign our systems around people rather than processes, to invest in relationships rather than just infrastructure and to ensure that in our rush to digitise, we don’t lose sight of what makes care truly caring.
In this rapidly evolving digital landscape, perhaps our greatest challenge—and opportunity— is to harness the power of technology whilst holding fast to the irreplaceable value of human connections. The care standards we develop must reflect both imperatives, creating a future care system that is digitally enabled while remaining deeply human.
Sector stakeholders were approached to participate in this roundtable series in August. The series has now hit capacity. If you are interested in joining the waiting list for this series, please contact George Appleton, Head of External Affairs at george.appleton@scie.org.uk
The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) improves the lives of people of all ages by co-producing, sharing, and supporting the use of the best available knowledge and evidence about what works in practice. We are a leading social independent charity working with organisations that support adults, families and children across the UK.
Access Health, Support and Care, part of The Access Group, is a leading provider of health and care management software, trusted by over 14,000 registered care locations, over 25 NHS Trusts and more than 200 local authorities across the UK. For more information, please visit: https://www.theaccessgroup.com/en-gb/health-social-care/
If you have any questions regarding this submission, please do not hesitate to contact Molly Pennington, Press and Media Relations Officer, at molly.pennington@scie.org.uk