5 Common Mistakes Businesses Make When Selecting Commercial Laundry Equipment
Choosing new commercial laundry equipment can be daunting, both in terms of what you’ll need to consider and the potential costs and upheaval involved. As a result, it’s easy to make mistakes that could prove detrimental in the long term.
This article offers useful tips and guidance for laundry experts and business leaders approaching a laundry room upgrade. It outlines five common mistakes to avoid when selecting new appliances – from failing to calculate your capacity needs to opting for machines with a poor energy rating.
No concept of average capacity
If you don’t have a handle on your average laundry throughput and day-to-day volumes, how can you identify the commercial laundry equipment that’s the right fit for your business?
Whether you’re in the market for a new washing machine or tumble dryer, or a complete laundry room upgrade, it’s essential to calculate your average capacity requirements. Only then can you select the appliances that will support your short- and long-term laundry needs.
Of course, there’s no one-size-fits-all approach here. Every business has different laundry capacity requirements, so only you will know what your current throughput averages out at.
How to calculate average laundry room capacity and volume requirements
The good news is that there are a few different metrics you can use to get a gauge on your daily laundry requirements, so you can get a rough ballpark of average volumes. For instance, you might like to try:
- Keeping a manual record of your average laundry volumes over a one or two week period.
- Using smart meter energy consumption data to track when and how often your equipment is used.
- Asking laundry room staff to help you get a gauge on average day-to-day volumes; they may have useful insights and advice that can help you.
Typically, it’s recommended to calculate your laundry capacity based on the average kilograms processed per day. That will guide you towards laundry equipment that’s rated for your average load size.
Failing to plan for future volume and scale
Closely related to the above point is the issue around failing to plan for the future. Just because you’re currently handling X amount of laundry per day, that doesn’t mean that volume will always stay the same.
When you’re investing in new commercial laundry equipment, you should always look to give your operations some headroom in terms of average capacity. There’s little point in selecting equipment that’s only compatible with your current volumes, as you could easily find yourself at capacity within a few months – potentially with another costly upgrade to manage.
It’s generally recommended to equip your commercial laundry with appliances that offer +10% more volume than you currently need. That way you’re future-proofing your operations to cope with increased demand, while also allowing for positive scaling and growth.
Not considering the square footage of your laundry room
Bulky, mismatched laundry equipment tightly packed into a small space not only presents a health and safety risk, but it could also mean that your laundry operations aren’t operating at their efficient best. This can lead to a variety of knock-on effects, from reduced efficiency and poor workflows to an unhealthy and potentially hazardous working environment for staff and stakeholders.
As such, you must plan and design your laundry room based on the square footage you have available. If you only have limited space at your disposal, clever and intuitive choices are essential in ensuring a safe and well-managed laundry, and one that’s easy to keep clean, tidy, and organised.
The benefit of stackable equipment in commercial laundry rooms
If space is tight in your commercial laundry room, stackable appliances could be a smart way forward. By installing a stacked system that combines a washer and a dryer, or, indeed, two of the same types of appliances, you’re effectively doubling your available floor space – utilising vertical space that would otherwise go unused.
Of course, when installing stackable laundry equipment, it’s critical that you seek a professional installation and only ever stack compatible appliances. You can’t simply put one appliance on top of the other; they’ll need to be installed, balanced, and loaded correctly to ensure safe operation and efficiency.
Choosing inefficient appliances with a poor energy rating
If cost is a priority for you when choosing new commercial laundry equipment, you might naturally gravitate towards appliances at the cheaper end of the scale. Typically, lower-priced commercial washing machines and tumble dryers won’t be as efficient as those with a more premium price tag, so that’s a big compromise that may come back to bite you in the future.
Granted, you may save on the initial purchase price by opting for one of these machines. But it’s worth noting that appliances with a higher energy rating may provide greater opportunity for long-term cost savings – offsetting the initial purchase price of the appliance.
Of course, there’s also a future-proofing element to choosing efficient commercial laundry equipment with a high energy rating. For example, you’ll be better protected from future energy price hikes, as well as any additional tariffs, charges, or penalties that the government introduces to curb the use of inefficient appliances.
Consider, too, the positive impact that high-efficiency laundry equipment might have on your Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) credentials. Your customers, stakeholders, residents, and clients may like to see that your business is taking steps to improve its ESG standards, so investing in high-efficiency laundry appliances is a great way of supporting long-term goals.
Not weighing up the best finance and procurement options
It’s understandable to approach any laundry room upgrades with some hesitation. After all, you might be wary of making a significant capital outlay to buy new equipment outright, as well as the impact that any downtime might have on your operations and revenue.
Note, though, that buying new commercial laundry equipment needn’t put a squeeze on your finances or prove heavily disruptive to your operations. There are flexible finance options available for professional laundry room upgrades, as well as equipment leasing and hire purchase solutions that remove the need for a high upfront payment altogether.
Before you buy new equipment for your commercial laundry, always consider which finance option works best for your budget. It may be that an equipment hire plan is the best solution, getting you the equipment you need for a manageable monthly cost.
These types of financing options are great because they usually come with all-inclusive servicing, maintenance, repairs, and installation as standard. So, for a fixed monthly sum, you get the equipment you need and peace of mind to boot.
Why Cyber Risk Management and Insurance Are Essential for Care Homes
Cyber risk is an increasing concern for care homes, as reliance on digital systems grows. Stuart Hulbert from Brents Insurance outlines how effective risk management and cyber insurance can help protect operations, data and reputation.
When people think about risks facing care homes, they often picture slips, trips, fire safety or safeguarding concerns. Increasingly, however, cyber risk deserves a place alongside these more familiar exposures.
Modern care homes rely heavily on technology. Resident records, medication management systems, payroll, rostering, finance platforms, and communication tools all play important roles in day-to-day operations. While these systems bring significant benefits, they also create new risks that need to be managed.
Cyber incidents do not always involve sophisticated hackers targeting large organisations. Many claims stem from simple yet effective tactics such as phishing emails, fraudulent payment requests, or staff inadvertently clicking on malicious links. A single mistake can result in data being compromised, funds being lost or critical systems becoming unavailable.
For care homes, the impact can extend beyond the immediate financial loss. If systems are unavailable, staff may need to revert to manual processes, increasing workload and disruption. In some cases, a cyber event can affect admissions, billing, communications, and access to important resident information.
“Prevention is as important as protection.”
The good news is that cyber insurance has evolved significantly in recent years. Traditional cyber policies can provide protection against costs associated with data breaches, cybercrime, ransomware incidents, regulatory investigations and liability claims. Many policies also include business interruption cover, helping organisations recover lost income and additional expenses when operations are disrupted by a cyber event.
Perhaps the most valuable development is the increasing focus on prevention rather than simply responding after an incident occurs. Many insurers now provide proactive cyber risk management services as part of their offering. These may include continuous monitoring for vulnerabilities, employee awareness training, phishing simulations and access to specialist cyber support teams. Such services can help identify potential issues before they develop into costly incidents.
As with all areas of risk management, cyber resilience is not about eliminating risk entirely. It is about taking sensible, proportionate steps to reduce the likelihood and impact of an incident. Regular staff training, strong password controls, software updates, and robust backup procedures remain among the most effective defences available.
Cyber risk is now part of the everyday operating environment for care homes, and we are aware that several Local Authorities now require Care Homes to hold Cyber (or Data Breach) Insurance.
By combining good risk management practices with appropriate insurance protection, providers can strengthen their resilience and focus on what matters most: delivering high-quality care to residents.
Why Life Stories Are the Foundation of Truly Person-Centred Care
After Cloud founder Darren Evans explains how personal experience inspired Storyteller, why digital life stories are transforming person-centred care, and how preserving identity can strengthen relationships, improve staff confidence and ensure every individual is known beyond their care plan.
How has your journey shaped the platform, and why do you believe preserving life stories is becoming an essential part of high-quality care?
I did not arrive at this from the outside looking in. The catalyst for Storyteller was deeply personal; my mother-in-law lived with Lewy Body Dementia, and watching that illness take hold taught me something I have never forgotten: when a person you know or love dies, a whole lifetime of information and knowledge can be lost in a heartbeat, and there is sadly no retrieval. That loss stays with you. Alongside that, I have spent more than twenty-five years working in and around social care technology, and the idea for Storyteller grew from years of watching, up close, what happens when the person behind the care plan gets lost. I have seen children move through multiple placements with their history scattered across paper files and institutional memory that walks out the door when a key worker leaves. I have seen adults in residential care reduced to a list of needs and risks, with the life they actually lived nowhere to be found. Preserving life stories is not a nice-to-have sitting alongside care; it is part of what good care actually means, because you cannot truly meet someone's needs if you do not know who they are. Our job is to ensure that we know the person rather than the condition.
How can digital life story technology help staff better understand residents beyond their care plans?
A care plan tells you what a person needs done for them. It does not tell you who they are, what they have lived through, what makes them laugh, or what they are frightened of. Done well, digital life story work gives staff a living picture they can return to and add to over time, so that every shift, every new starter, every agency worker stepping in for a day has access to the same depth of understanding rather than relying on whoever happened to ask the right question once. That consistency matters enormously in a sector with high staff turnover and constant handover. It is the difference between care that is administered and care that is genuinely informed and safely and securely accessible.
Where do you see technology adding the greatest value without replacing the human relationships that are at the heart of care?
As I see it, technology's job here is to remove friction, not to stand in for connection. The greatest value is in making sure that the right piece of someone's story surfaces at the right moment, in the hands of the person actually sitting with them, so that a conversation can happen that would otherwise never have started. It also has real value in capturing and safeguarding history that would otherwise be lost entirely, particularly for children in care whose records can be fragmented across multiple agencies and placements, and for adults whose families may not always be present to pass on what they know. But the relationship itself, the moment a carer sits down and asks about someone's wedding day or their first job, that is entirely human, and it always will be. Carers themselves do a fantastic job of caring, and our job is to make sure they walk into that moment prepared, and for activity coordinators to capture the moments of joy that can often take place in a progressive care setting.
How does After Cloud help strengthen relationships between residents, relatives and care teams?
Storyteller is built so that the story is never owned by any one party. I actually believe the story should ideally be applied, even before resident admission. Residents, families, and care teams can all contribute over time, so the record keeps growing rather than sitting stagnant from the day someone joins a service. For families, that is often deeply meaningful, particularly when distance, time, or a loved one's condition makes regular visiting difficult. It gives them a way to stay genuinely involved rather than feeling like visitors to someone else's care. For care teams, it builds trust with families because they can see, not just be told, that the person they love is known. And because Storyteller was designed from the outset to work across both children's and adults' social care, that same principle, that everyone with a legitimate stake in a person's story should be able to contribute to and draw on it safely, applies across the whole of someone's life, not just one chapter of it.
What feedback have you received from care providers using After Cloud, and are there any examples where the platform has demonstrably improved resident wellbeing, engagement or staff confidence?
It's important for readers to know that we are led by an independent steering group of social care thought leaders, chaired by Des Kelly OBE (Des is currently acting as EU Exit Planning Lead for the Care Provider Alliance. He is also Chair of the Centre for Policy on Ageing and was Executive Director of the National Care Forum from 2003 to 2016). We work with innovative organisations including Eleanor Healthcare Group, who are rolling Storyteller out across sixteen of their care homes this year, alongside many other esteemed providers such as Athena Care Group, Panacea, Niche Care Homes, Families First, Amberleigh Care and the Borough of Telford and Wrekin, attracting both CQC and OFSTED-related feedback during regulatory visits. The feedback we hear most consistently is about confidence, staff telling us they feel better equipped walking into a new resident's room or a first meeting with a child in care because they are not starting from nothing. We are also building a formal evidence base for this, including a research pathway exploring Storyteller's impact in residential care, because we believe the case for life story work should stand up to the same scrutiny as any other clinical or care intervention, not rest on anecdote alone. We are proud to hold ARA accreditation and to have been named Innovator of the Year, recognition that reflects the seriousness with which we approach this work. Storyteller was also supported from the outset by an Innovate UK technology grant for research conducted by SEHTA (Science, Engineering and Health Technology Alliance) prior to our starting to develop the solution.
Looking ahead, what do you think the future of digital life stories and person-centred technology in social care will look like over the next five years, and what role do you hope After Cloud will play in that evolution?
I think within five years, life story work will be treated as standard practice rather than a point of differentiation, much as care planning itself became standard decades ago. Regulation is already moving in that direction, and providers are recognising that you cannot evidence genuinely relational or person-centred care without it. Where I hope After Cloud leads is in refusing to treat this as an adults-only conversation. Children in care deserve the same continuity of identity and story as anyone in a care home, arguably more so, because their early years story is still being written and the stakes of losing it are higher. Our partnership with Coram strengthens this as we are a trusted technology provider. We also believe that Intergenerational learning and legacy beyond the care setting itself are hugely important, which is why our work extends to personal memory and digital legacy more broadly, and to preserving history in other forms entirely, from heritage assets to provenance. Our ambition is for Storyteller to be the platform that proves life story work is not a feature you add to care; it is the foundation good care is built on, for every person, at every stage of life.
Above all, we want to ensure that we continue to drive social impact and, where possible, make a difference. We see this in our support for charities like Comfort Cases, as well as other great causes and initiatives, such as Championing Social Care. The sector is supporting the sector with incredible work
The difference between delivering care and delivering a good lived experience
There is a dangerous comfort in believing that care has been delivered simply because a task has been completed. Medication administered. Personal care provided. Meal served. Fluid chart updated. Care plan reviewed. Family contacted. Risk assessment filed.
All of these things matter. In regulated care, they matter profoundly. They protect life, evidence accountability and create the basic architecture of safe provision. But they are not, by themselves, the same as a good lived experience. Care is what we provide. Lived experience is what the person actually receives, feels, remembers and carries. That distinction may appear subtle, but in practice it is the line between a service that is merely operational and a service that is genuinely humane. It is also the line between compliance as a defensive activity and quality as a living culture.
Across adult social care, we have become skilled at documenting inputs. We can evidence rotas, audits, supervisions, incident reviews and policy updates. Yet the most important question is often the one least easily captured in a spreadsheet: what does it feel like to live here, to be supported here, to lose independence here, to depend on strangers here, to age here, to recover here, or to spend one’s final chapter here? That is the question that separates delivering care from delivering a good lived experience.
Care Is Not Enough If It Does Not Preserve Personhood
Good care begins with safety, but it cannot end there. A person can be safe and still feel invisible. A person can be clean, fed and medicated, yet still feel lonely, patronised or managed rather than known. A person can have every clinical need recorded and still experience a daily erosion of identity. The purpose of care is not simply to maintain the body. It is to uphold the person.
In my own work across staffing, homecare, supported living, complex care and social care innovation, I have learnt that the best services are not defined by how efficiently they complete tasks. They are defined by how intentionally they protect dignity, autonomy, belonging and meaning. A good lived experience asks different questions.
Not only: “Has Mrs Patel eaten?”
But: “Was the meal familiar, culturally meaningful, offered with patience, and served in a way that respected her preferences?”
Not only: “Has Mr Thompson been supported to wash?”
But: “Was he rushed, exposed, embarrassed, or spoken to as though he was a task?”
Not only: “Has the activity timetable been followed?”
But: “Did anyone notice that he used to be a mechanic, that she misses church, that another resident lights up when Nigerian gospel music plays, or that someone who never joins group activities may still crave one-to-one conversation?”
Care completes the intervention. Lived experience honours the human being inside the intervention.
The Regulatory Direction Is Already Clear
The sector should not treat lived experience as a soft aspiration. It is now central to what quality means. The Care Quality Commission’s current assessment approach is built around whether services are safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Its quality statements expect providers to demonstrate person-centred, dignified, responsive care that is shaped by what matters to people, not merely by what is convenient for systems. This is important because lived experience is not an optional extra added after compliance. It is the evidence that compliance has reached the person.
Regulation 9 on person-centred care requires care and treatment to meet needs and reflect preferences. Regulation 10 on dignity and respect requires people to be treated with dignity at all times. These are not decorative standards. They are operational, cultural and moral requirements.
The weakness in many services is not that leaders do not know the regulations. It is that they translate them too narrowly. They mistake “person-centred care” for having a completed care plan with preferences listed inside it. But a preference written down and then ignored is not person-centred care. A “This Is Me” document buried in a file is not lived experience. A keyworker system that does not produce emotional continuity is only a structure, not a relationship. A good lived experience happens when documented knowledge becomes daily behaviour.
The Human Difference Is Often Found in Micro-Moments
The difference between care and lived experience is rarely found in grand gestures. It is found in micro-moments repeated consistently.
It is in knocking before entering, even when someone may not respond.
It is in explaining what is happening before touching someone’s body.
It is in knowing that a resident prefers tea strong, not because it is written in the care plan, but because someone cared enough to remember.
It is in noticing when a person’s silence is not contentment but withdrawal.
It is in supporting someone to choose their own clothing, even when it takes longer.
It is in refusing to speak over a person in front of professionals.
It is in understanding that “challenging behaviour” may be grief, trauma, fear, sensory overload, pain or the final remaining form of control.
These moments do not always require more money. They require leadership, training, emotional intelligence and moral discipline.
A rushed culture produces rushed care. A fearful culture produces defensive documentation. A task-led culture produces institutional habits, even in beautiful buildings. A loving, well-led and accountable culture produces something different: an environment where people are not simply kept alive, but enabled to feel that their life still belongs to them.
Workforce Experience Shapes Resident Experience
We cannot discuss lived experience honestly without discussing the workforce.
A depleted, undertrained, unsupported workforce cannot consistently deliver emotionally intelligent care. Staff who feel unseen often struggle to see others fully. Staff who are treated as replaceable labour may begin, unconsciously, to deliver replaceable interactions. This is not an excuse for poor practice. It is a leadership warning.
If providers want better lived experience for residents, they must design better working conditions for staff: proper induction, reflective supervision, trauma-informed training, cultural competence, safe staffing, clear escalation pathways and managers who do not only audit paperwork but observe relational practice.
The care worker is often the person who creates the lived experience hour by hour. Yet too often, the sector underestimates the intellectual and emotional complexity of the role. Supporting someone with dementia, autism, mental health needs, acquired disability, frailty or end-of-life anxiety requires far more than kindness. It requires judgement, restraint, patience, communication skill and the ability to interpret human distress without reducing it to inconvenience. If we want staff to deliver good lived experience, we must equip them to understand the person beyond the presentation.
Culture Must Be Designed, Not Assumed
Many care organisations say they are caring. Fewer can prove how that care is embedded. Culture is not what is written on the wall. It is what happens when no senior manager is watching. A good lived experience requires leaders to design culture deliberately. That means asking uncomfortable questions:
- Do our rotas allow time for relationship, or only task completion?
- Do our audits measure dignity, choice and emotional wellbeing, or only documentation?
- Do complaints lead to learning, or defensiveness?
- Do families feel respected as partners, or tolerated as interruptions?
- Do residents influence decisions, or are they merely consulted after decisions have already been made?
- Do we understand cultural identity, faith, language, food, hair, skin, disability and family structure as core to wellbeing, or as “additional preferences”?
- Do we treat people’s rooms as their homes, or as workplaces we control?
If the answer is weak, the service may be delivering care, but it is not yet delivering a good lived experience.
Technology Should Support Humanity, Not Replace It
Digital systems, when well designed, can strengthen care. They can improve continuity, reduce missed information, identify patterns and support governance. I believe deeply in the role of care technology because I have seen the consequences of fragmented systems. But technology must never become a substitute for presence.
A digital care record can tell us that someone refused breakfast. It cannot, by itself, tell us whether they felt depressed, unheard, nauseous, frightened, embarrassed, or simply tired of being offered food they do not enjoy. That requires human curiosity.
The future of care should not be technology versus compassion. It should be technology in service of compassion. The best systems should free staff to know people better, respond faster, evidence more intelligently and prevent people from becoming lost inside institutional routines. Technology should help us ask better human questions.
Lived Experience Is a Leadership Standard
Ultimately, the quality of lived experience in a care setting is a leadership outcome.
Leaders set the tone for whether people are seen as individuals or packages of need. Leaders decide whether dignity is audited seriously. Leaders determine whether staff are trained merely to comply or developed to think. Leaders choose whether the organisation listens to people with humility or protects itself with polished language.
In care, leadership is not proved in board papers alone. It is proved in the dining room, the night shift, the medication round, the handover, the family meeting, the safeguarding response and the way a resident is spoken to when they are distressed, repetitive, resistant or afraid.
The highest standard is not perfection. Care is complex, and human services will always face pressure. The standard is whether the provider is awake, honest, reflective and relentless in improving the person’s actual experience.
From Service Delivery to Life Delivery
The future of social care must move beyond the narrow language of provision. We are not simply delivering care packages. We are entering people’s homes, bedrooms, routines, histories, griefs, identities and futures. That demands reverence.
A good lived experience is created when people feel safe without feeling controlled, supported without feeling diminished, known without feeling exposed, and cared for without feeling that their personhood has been swallowed by their needs. This is the work.
Not only to help someone get up, but to give them a reason to want to.
Not only to prevent harm, but to preserve hope.
Not only to meet assessed needs, but to honour the life behind those needs.
Not only to deliver care, but to deliver conditions in which a person can still experience dignity, agency, connection and joy.
The difference between care and a good lived experience is the difference between doing things to people and building life with them. The sector cannot afford to confuse the two.
About Pauline Vuyelwa Muswere-Enagbonma
Co- Founder and Group Chief Executive, Jessamy Care Ecosystem
Founder of JessamyCareOne | Master British Certified Trainer | Social Care Reformer
https://www.jessamystaffing.co.uk/
Pauline Vuyelwa Muswere-Enagbonma is the Co-Founder and Group Chief Executive of the Jessamy ecosystem, which sits within Jessamy Platinum Holdings Limited. The group includes ventures across staffing, regulated care, supported accommodation, children’s services, community transport, professional training and care technology.
Founded in 2020 from Jessamy Staffing Solutions, the ecosystem has grown into an integrated model that includes Jessamy Staffing Solutions, Jessamy Platinum Homecare, Jessamy Platinum Homes, Lumina Pathways CIC, Jessamy Transport Services and JessamyCareOne.
Pauline is a Master British Certified Trainer and CPD-accredited professional. Her work focuses on social care reform, workforce development, ethical care technology, trauma-informed care and improved life chances for children, adults and families.
Pauline’s leadership philosophy, The Discipline of Grace, reframes governance as responsibility grounded in kindness, love, care, integrity and accountability.
5 leadership pitfalls that keep care teams stuck (and what new managers can do instead)
By Pooja Rabheru, Founder and Lead Consultant at Pulse Leadership
Stepping into a management role in social care doesn’t feel like a simple promotion. It’s more like a shift in who you are at work.
One day, you’re part of the team, getting through shifts together. Next, you’re the one people look to for decisions while juggling staff shortages, safeguarding concerns, and the possibility of an inspection at any moment. Sometimes, all before you’ve even had a proper break.
It’s a lot to take on, especially when you're now managing people who used to be your peers. And without much support, it’s easy to fall into habits that quietly hold the team back.
From what I’ve seen working with care services, a few patterns come up again and again:
- Putting Off Difficult Conversations
This is probably the most common one.
When you’ve got a good relationship with someone, it feels uncomfortable to pull them up on things. So you tell yourself you’ll deal with it later, when there’s more time, when it happens again or when it feels easier.
But “later” tends to turn into weeks, sometimes months.
In the meantime, others notice, frustration builds, and it can feel like some people are getting away with things others wouldn’t. In most cases, a quick, calm conversation early on is all that’s needed. It’s rarely as difficult as it feels beforehand, and it saves a lot of stress down the line.
- Trying Too Hard to Stay “One of the Team”
It’s completely natural. These are people you’ve worked alongside, probably supported through some tough shifts. You don’t suddenly want to feel separate from them.
But the role has changed.
You can’t really be part of conversations criticising “management” while also being the person responsible for setting expectations. It doesn’t mean becoming distant or overly formal, but there’s a point where you have to draw a line, especially when it comes to fairness.
Having a difficult conversation with someone you like is uncomfortable; avoiding it usually sends a much stronger message to everyone else.
Over time, respect and transparency matter more than being liked.
- Doing Everything Yourself
Many new managers fall into this without realising.
You want to prove yourself. You don’t want to let the team down. So you step in by covering shifts, fixing rotas late at night, finishing off paperwork after everyone else has gone home.
At first, it feels like you’re helping, but it can quickly become exhausting. The real trap here is that the team can start relying on you to pick up everything!
Over time, that slows everyone’s development and leaves you stretched far too thin.
The shift here is from doing to supporting others to do. That might mean giving someone responsibility for part of the rota, or encouraging people to solve problems before bringing them to you.
It takes more patience at the start, but it builds a much stronger team.
- Treating Every Situation the Same Way
Care environments change constantly.
Some weeks you need to be very clear and direct, especially if staffing is tight or something serious has happened. Other times, the team just needs space to rebuild confidence or find their own rhythm again.
A common trap is sticking to one leadership style, regardless of what’s going on.
For example, during a busy or pressured period, long discussions can feel frustrating when people just need clarity. On the other hand, in a settled team, too much oversight can feel unnecessary.
Good leadership is less about having a single “style” and more about reading the room, noticing what people need and adjusting as you go.
- Waiting to Feel Ready
A lot of new managers have this internal monologue: “I’m not quite ready for this yet”
The assumption is that confidence should come first, before taking on the role.
In reality, it doesn’t.
Most managers, even experienced ones, can remember moments where they felt completely out of their depth, but handled it anyway.
Confidence tends to build afterwards, not before.
You try something, reflect on it, tweak it next time, and gradually it starts to feel more natural.
Stepping into management in social care is a big shift and not just for you, but for the team around you too. It affects how decisions are made, how consistent things feel, and ultimately, the quality of care.
You don’t need to get everything right. No one does.
Most of the time, it’s about having the conversation you’ve been putting off, making the best decision you can with what you’ve got, and learning as you go.
Usually with a cup of tea nearby that you keep forgetting to drink…
Selling Care Ethically
Ethical marketing is becoming essential in care, as providers move away from pressure-led sales towards approaches grounded in transparency, empathy and trust. With expert insight from Carl Roberts of Boutique Care Homes, Paul Lawson of Advinia Healthcare, and Jayne Connery of Care Campaign for the Vulnerable, the sector is redefining success around relationships, not just occupancy.
In care, the word 'sales” has traditionally felt uncomfortable, as it suggests pressure, persuasion, and targets; concepts that clash with values like dignity, compassion, and safeguarding. However, with ongoing occupancy pressures and rising competition, providers are compelled to reconsider their self-presentation.
The solution isn't to push sales harder but to change how they sell. A more mature approach is emerging across the sector: one that views marketing not just as a transactional task but as a process to build trust, grounded in transparency, empathy, and long-term relationships. Ethical marketing is no longer optional; it is increasingly the most effective way to achieve commercial success.
From conversion to connection
One of the key shifts is understanding the context in which care choices are made. Families are not merely browsing; they are navigating through crisis, uncertainty, and often feelings of guilt. As Carl Roberts, Director of Sales and Marketing at Boutique Care Homes, states, “nobody ever window shops for care.”
This insight changes the entire admissions process, as families make emotionally driven, urgent decisions that affect their entire households. This fundamentally alters how marketing and admissions teams operate. Instead of focusing solely on conversion, the home’s role becomes to guide families toward the best outcome, whether that involves your service or not. Traditional sales tactics like emphasising urgency, scarcity, or “closing the deal” may achieve short-term occupancy but can harm reputation in the long run.
Families under pressure are less likely to advocate, which is crucial in a sector reliant on word-of-mouth. Conversely, relationship-driven approaches tend to perform better. As Carl explains, becoming a “trusted influencer" in family decision-making fosters trust that boosts both conversion rates and long-term reputation.
The problem with pressure
Despite progress, outdated practices still remain. Paul Lawson, Head of Sales and Marketing at Advinia, emphasises that high-pressure tactics, such as implying that beds might not be available soon, are inappropriate in care settings. Such methods rush families into decisions that deserve careful thought, risking poor placements and future issues.
Likewise, Carl points out that “chasing a crisis", using urgency to drive decisions during vulnerable moments, is highly damaging for the sector. Overpromising is also common; telling families what they want to hear, especially about complex care needs, creates a disconnect between expectations and reality. When this mismatch becomes clear after admission, it damages trust. Ethical marketing challenges these harmful behaviours by replacing pressure with patience and false promises with transparency.
What transparency really looks like
Transparency is frequently discussed but less often clearly defined. Practically, it involves being upfront about the full reality of care: early, clear, and consistent communication. Paul highlights the importance of managing expectations from the start by explaining fee structures, annual increases, and additional services like hairdressing or transport.
The principle of “under-promising and over-delivering” is seen as essential for building long-term trust. Carl goes further, suggesting that true transparency means “saying the quiet things out loud,” including openly addressing care limitations before admission, even if it risks losing a potential resident.
Jayne Connery supports this view, emphasising that families seek honesty, not perfection. She points out that communication often falters during tough times, when providers become defensive rather than transparent. “Families can cope with challenges,” she says, “but struggle when they feel dismissed or shut out.” Transparency now also extends to education, with providers offering guidance on funding, care pathways, and conditions such as dementia, thereby supporting families and establishing themselves as trusted, credible sources of information.
Handling enquiries with empathy
If ethical marketing has a front line, it is handling inquiries. Each inquiry is a vulnerable moment, and the way it is managed influences the entire relationship. Carl states that admissions teams should "offer support, not solutions.”
Leading with a sales pitch at this stage risks alienating families who need reassurance and understanding most. Empathy, rather than sympathy, is crucial; this means understanding the full context of a family’s situation, including emotional, practical, and personal factors that influence their decision.
Practical actions include clearly explaining contracts and fees, encouraging families to review information at their own pace, and sharing regulatory reports to help them make informed choices. Sometimes, this approach may even lead families to decide against a care home placement altogether. As Paul mentions, inviting families to visit the home beforehand can lead them to choose alternative care options. Despite this, such outcomes should still be considered successful because the decision aligns with the individual's best interests.
The commercial case for ethics
The idea that ethical marketing conflicts with business success is becoming increasingly outdated. In fact, all the evidence suggests the opposite. Carl points out that word-of-mouth, which is based entirely on trust, consistently surpasses other channels in conversion rates.
Families who feel supported rather than pressured are much more likely to recommend a provider to others. Similarly, Jayne emphasises that lived experiences shape reputation in care. “Families talk. Staff talk. Professionals talk.” Transparent and ethical engagement reduces the gap between expectations and reality, a gap that is often the source of complaints. There are also operational advantages: handling ethical inquiries reduces the risk of mismatched placements, which can be upsetting for residents and disruptive to services; investing time to find the right fit results in more stable, successful admissions.
A shared responsibility
Ethical marketing isn't the sole responsibility of providers; partners, suppliers, and sector organisations all play a vital role. Jayne emphasises that collaboration is key to fostering transparency, consistency, and accountability throughout the sector.
Trusted partners should uphold values rather than weaken them, making sure messaging reflects the genuine experiences of residents and families. Importantly, collaboration enables more honest discussions about the challenges in care, and this openness can build trust rather than diminish confidence. Transparency should be viewed as a demonstration of confidence, not a sign of weakness.
Redefining success
Ultimately, ethical care sales require redefining success. It's not just about filling beds but about fostering relationships, supporting families, and ensuring every placement is appropriate. Paul highlights that resident wellbeing should precede sales, while Carl stresses long-term advocacy over immediate profit.
In a sector where trust is fragile and vital, ethical marketing isn’t just correct; it’s also the most effective strategy. Over time, this approach fosters sustainable growth.
From Safety Monitoring to AI: How the Conversation Around Technology in Care Has Changed Since Parliament Debated the Issue in 2018
In 2018 technology was rarely part of the conversation in social care, writes Jayne Connery FRSA FRSPH
While other sectors were embracing innovation, the idea that technology could support safety, transparency and accountability in care homes was often met with hesitation. Discussions about cameras, monitoring systems and digital safeguards were limited, particularly within dementia care, where some of the most vulnerable people in society are often unable to explain what has happened to them when things go wrong.
At a time when few organisations were speaking publicly about the role technology could play in protecting vulnerable people, Care Campaign for the Vulnerable (CCFTV) began raising the issue.
Driven by the experiences of families, including my own experiences supporting my mother through her dementia journey, CCFTV became one of the first organisations in the UK to advocate for greater transparency and safety in care, particularly within dementia care settings. We believed that families deserved reassurance, care staff deserved protection from false allegations, and vulnerable people deserved every safeguard available to help keep them safe.
The conversation was never about replacing care with technology.
It was about asking whether technology could become one of many tools available to support good care, improve accountability and provide answers when concerns arose. As more families came forward with reports of unexplained injuries, unwitnessed falls, safeguarding concerns and unanswered questions, the campaign gained momentum. What started as a grassroots movement led by families eventually reached Westminster.
In 2018, the issue of CCTV in care home communal areas was debated in Parliament during a Westminster Hall debate led by then Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve. The accompanying House of Commons briefing paper referenced the work of Care Campaign for the Vulnerable and highlighted the growing national discussion around transparency and safety in care.
For a small independent organisation, it was a significant milestone. The debate explored both the opportunities and challenges associated with safety monitoring in care settings. While there were differing opinions, one thing was clear: transparency in care had become a national issue worthy of Parliamentary attention.
Today, it is remarkable to see how far the sector has come. Back in 2018, much of the debate centred around CCTV. Today, technology in care extends far beyond cameras. Providers are increasingly using digital care planning systems, acoustic monitoring, falls prevention technology, wearable devices, artificial intelligence and remote health monitoring to support residents and care teams.
Technology is helping providers identify health concerns earlier, recognise changes in behaviour, respond more quickly to risks and improve communication between staff, healthcare professionals and families.
We are also seeing technology used to support greater independence.
For many years, care services understandably focused heavily on risk reduction. Today, there is growing recognition that people living with dementia should still be supported to live meaningful lives, take appropriate risks and maintain as much independence as possible. Technology can play an important role in achieving that balance.
One of the most positive developments has been the shift in attitude across the sector.
In 2018, the debate was largely about whether technology had a place in care at all. In 2026, the discussion is increasingly focused on how technology can be used responsibly, ethically and with consent to deliver better care.
That is real progress.
We have seen technology help investigate unexplained incidents, provide valuable evidence when concerns arise, support safeguarding processes, improve staff training and strengthen confidence between providers and families.
Importantly, we have also seen technology support vulnerable people to live safer, fuller and more independent lives.
This progress should be celebrated.
Technology is not, and never will be, a replacement for compassionate, skilled and dedicated care staff. Good care will always be built upon human relationships, kindness and professionalism.
However, when combined with a positive culture and strong leadership, technology can be a powerful tool that enhances care rather than replacing it.
CCFTV’s own position has evolved alongside these developments. While continuing to champion choice-led safety monitoring, we now support a broader conversation about innovation in care and how technology can improve safety, dignity, wellbeing and independence.
Over the past decade, we have worked alongside families, providers, technology experts, policymakers and sector leaders who share a common goal: delivering the safest and best possible care for vulnerable people.
Perhaps most encouragingly, many care providers are now embracing transparency rather than fearing it. Increasing numbers recognise that openness builds trust, supports learning and ultimately leads to better outcomes for residents, families and staff.
The challenges facing social care remain significant. Funding pressures, workforce shortages and increasingly complex care needs continue to test the resilience of the sector.
Yet there are reasons to be optimistic.
There is greater awareness of dementia than ever before. There is more discussion around human rights, inclusion and person-centred care. And there is growing recognition that technology, when used appropriately, can be a force for good.
Looking back, the Parliamentary debate of 2018 was never the destination – it was one important milestone on a much longer journey. Today, Care Campaign for the Vulnerable remains proud to have been one of the early voices calling for greater transparency and safety in care.
Now, in 2026, the conversation has changed beyond recognition. What was once considered controversial is increasingly becoming part of everyday practice.
And that can only be a positive thing for the people who matter most – those receiving care and the families who love them.
Care Workers Deserve Protection
Digital Care Hub is urging care providers to review how they protect staff, following reports of racist abuse, intimidation and anti-migrant incidents affecting care workers in communities across the UK. They have also issued an alert regarding an email scam and the Sponsor Management System.
Recent media reports have described migrant care workers being spat at, chased, threatened and racially abused while travelling between visits. These incidents are a direct threat to the safety, confidence and wellbeing of a workforce already under immense pressure.
International care workers make an essential contribution to adult social care, supporting older and disabled people in people’s own homes, at unsocial hours and in isolated settings. British-born workers from ethnic minority backgrounds are also being affected by the same hostile climate. No worker should feel afraid to do their job, wait for a bus, visit a person’s home or walk through the community they serve.
Care workers deserve protection
Michelle Corrigan, Chief Executive of Digital Care Hub, said:
“This type of behaviour has no place in our society. It is creating a culture of fear and intimidation against the very care workers who are supporting some of our most vulnerable people. Overseas care workers, and British-born workers from ethnic minority communities, are valued and essential members of our care workforce. They deserve respect, protection and practical support.”
How digital check-ins can help
Digital tools cannot solve racism. That requires leadership, accountability and a clear zero-tolerance approach from employers, public bodies and wider society. But technology can help providers strengthen their duty of care, especially for home care and lone workers who may be travelling alone, working across unfamiliar areas or supporting people where immediate help is not close by.
Providers should consider whether digital check-ins could form part of their staff safety arrangements. These can allow workers to confirm when they arrive safely at a visit, when they leave, and whether they need support. Some systems can alert a manager or on-call lead if a check-in is missed.
- Lone worker apps that enable quick check-ins and alerts.
- Discreet panic alarms or emergency buttons.
- Secure messaging groups for urgent contact with managers.
- Incident reporting systems that help providers spot patterns and act on them.
- Location-sharing tools, used proportionately and transparently, where there is a clear safety need.
Technology must be used with care. Monitoring should be proportionate, transparent and respectful of staff privacy. Workers should know what information is collected, who can see it, how long it is kept and how it will be used. Digital safety measures should be developed with staff, not imposed on them.
Stay alert to sponsorship scams
The current climate is also creating opportunities for fraudsters. Digital Care Hub has published a scam alert about fake emails claiming to be from the Home Office or UK Visas and Immigration and targeting users of the Sponsorship Management System. These messages may look official, claim urgent action is needed and ask users to log in through a fake link. If successful, criminals may gain access to sponsorship accounts and use them for fraud.
Providers with sponsor licences should remind staff never to share login details, never to use links in unexpected emails, and to access official systems through GOV.UK. They should also review who has access to sponsorship systems, remove users who no longer need access, use strong passwords and check account activity regularly.
More information is available in our alert and advice about this scam.
A joined-up response
Digital Care Hub encourages care providers to take a joined-up approach: listen to staff, update risk assessments, make reporting routes simple, review lone worker arrangements, and ensure cyber security advice reaches the people who manage sponsorship and HR systems.
Racism, intimidation and exploitation must never be treated as an unavoidable part of care work. Every care worker deserves to feel safe, valued and supported. Digital tools are not the whole answer, but they can be part of a practical response that helps providers protect their teams and stand clearly with the people who keep care services running.
Everyday Risks, Preventable Claims: Getting the Basics Right in Care Homes
Insurance claims in care homes usually result from everyday oversights, not dramatic events, as Stuart Hulbert from Brents Insurance explains. Regular processes, checks, and documentation help reduce risks and prevent losses.
In my experience, the majority of insurance claims in care homes arise not from extraordinary events, but from everyday issues that could often be prevented with simple checks and clear procedures.
Good risk management does not need to be complicated. A few practical measures can significantly reduce the likelihood of property damage, resident injury, and liability claims, while also providing insurers with the documentation needed to defend allegations when incidents do occur.
Property Risks: Prevention Starts with Routine
Many serious property claims begin with maintenance issues that were either overlooked or not recorded.
Key areas to review include:
- Electrical inspections and PAT testing
- Fire alarm and emergency lighting servicing
- Boiler and heating maintenance
- Roof and gutter inspections
- Legionella monitoring
- Kitchen extraction cleaning
These checks should be scheduled, completed, and documented. Water damage remains one of the most common and disruptive causes of claims, yet regular roof inspections and prompt repair of minor leaks can often prevent substantial losses.
Liability Risks: Focus on Everyday Hazards
Public and employers’ liability claims frequently arise from slips, trips, falls, moving and handling incidents, and medication errors.
Simple controls include:
- Daily walk-round inspections
- Prompt removal of hazards
- Regular staff refresher training Risk assessments tailored to residents’ needs
- Accurate accident and near-miss reporting
Near misses are particularly valuable.
Documentation: Your Best Defence
Even where a claim lacks merit, insurers need evidence to defend it effectively.
The most useful documents include:
- Signed risk assessments
- Training records
- Maintenance logs
- Cleaning schedules
- Accident investigation reports
- Policies and procedures with review dates
In the event of an incident, having a process to complete a full assessment report of what took place, including input from those involved, will capture important information whilst all is fresh in everyone’s memory. A well-kept file can make the difference between a claim being successfully defended and one being settled simply because evidence is unavailable.
A Practical Annual Review
At least once a year, managers should ask:
- Are our risk assessments current?
- Are maintenance records complete?
- Have policies been reviewed?
- Are staff training records up to date?
- Have near misses been analysed?
Risk management is not about eliminating every possibility of loss. It is about demonstrating that reasonable steps were taken to protect residents, staff, and property.
When those steps are documented, care providers are in a far stronger position—both operationally and when facing an insurance claim.
When Care Breaks Down: Why Evictions and Withdrawn Care Packages Must Be Part of the National Conversation
By Jayne Connery, Founder of Care Campaign for the Vulnerable
For many families, the greatest fear is not simply placing a loved one into care. It is the fear of what happens if that care suddenly ends.
Over recent years, Care Campaign for the Vulnerable (CCFTV) has seen a significant rise in families contacting us after being told that a care home can no longer meet the needs of their relative, or that a domiciliary care provider intends to withdraw support entirely.
In some cases, providers are absolutely right to say that needs have become too complex. Care providers cannot safely support every situation, particularly where staffing levels, funding limitations or specialist clinical requirements create genuine risk.
But families repeatedly tell us another side of the story.
They describe situations where relationships deteriorated after raising safeguarding concerns, questioning standards of care, requesting incident investigations or challenging communication failures. They describe feeling labelled as “difficult” simply for asking questions about the care of someone they love.
CCFTV is increasingly supporting families who believe that complaints and advocacy are contributing to the breakdown of care relationships. This is not just happening in care homes. It is also happening within home care services, where vulnerable elderly people are being left frightened and distressed after agencies threaten to “pull out” of packages with little notice. For someone living with dementia, frailty or complex health conditions, the sudden removal of trusted carers can be devastating.
The emotional impact on families is enormous.
Many relatives already carry significant guilt about needing outside support in the first place. They are exhausted, anxious and often navigating highly complex systems around Continuing Healthcare, safeguarding, discharge planning and dementia care. When care arrangements become unstable, families can feel trapped between fear of speaking up and fear of losing care altogether.
There is also a wider issue here that the sector must be willing to discuss openly.
The phrase “unable to meet needs” is increasingly being used within care, but there is often little transparency around what that truly means. Is it because needs have genuinely escalated beyond safe provision? Is it because staffing levels are stretched? Is it because the relationship between family and provider has broken down? Or is it because providers fear reputational damage, complaints escalation or regulatory scrutiny?
These are uncomfortable questions, but they are important ones. Families deserve honest conversations, not defensive ones.
At the same time, providers themselves are under immense pressure. Staffing shortages, rising operational costs, increasing dependency levels and insufficient funding are placing huge strain on services. Many providers are managing extraordinarily difficult situations every day while trying to protect both residents and staff.
This is why the conversation around evictions and withdrawn care packages cannot become simply “families versus providers”. That helps nobody.
What is needed is greater transparency, earlier intervention and independent mediation before relationships collapse completely.
Too often, communication breaks down long before formal notices are issued. Concerns become personalised. Trust disappears. Meetings become confrontational rather than solution-focused. Families feel unheard, while providers feel unsupported and under attack. By the time an eviction notice or package withdrawal is issued, the relationship is often beyond repair.
For vulnerable elderly people, especially those living with dementia, the consequences can be profound. A move from a familiar environment can lead to rapid deterioration, increased confusion, distress, falls, hospital admission and, in some cases, irreversible decline.
We cannot continue to treat these situations as purely contractual matters There also needs to be far more discussion around how providers are supported to manage complex dementia care. Across the sector, many homes are caring for residents with increasingly advanced behaviours, psychological distress, aggression linked to neurological disease and highly unpredictable presentations.
This requires specialist dementia training, emotional resilience, leadership support and realistic staffing structures. Without this, providers themselves can feel overwhelmed and families can feel abandoned.
CCFTV believes there must be stronger frameworks around how care breakdowns are managed. Families should never feel frightened to raise concerns. Providers should not feel left unsupported when trying to manage highly complex situations. And vulnerable elderly people should never become collateral damage in fractured relationships between organisations and relatives.
Most importantly, the sector must stop seeing difficult conversations as damaging.
Talking openly about evictions, care withdrawals and relationship breakdowns is not anti-provider. In fact, avoiding these conversations damages trust far more. Transparency builds confidence. Families understand that not every placement can continue indefinitely. What they struggle with is feeling excluded, blamed or abruptly abandoned. The reality is that good care relies on partnership.
Families bring history, understanding and emotional insight. Providers bring professional care, structure and clinical oversight. When those relationships work well, outcomes are often extraordinary. But when communication collapses, it is vulnerable people who suffer most.
CCFTV will continue supporting families navigating these deeply distressing situations, while also advocating for balanced conversations that recognise the pressures providers face. Because if we truly want a safer and more compassionate care sector, we must be brave enough to talk about what happens when care relationships break down and how we can stop vulnerable people paying the price.