A Backup Plan Written After the Crisis Is Not a Backup Plan

Develop contingencies for supports that cannot wait, in proportion to the support.

Numerous plans outline desired arrangements in detail but say much less about a worker cancellation, a provider exit, a family emergency or temporary loss of housing.

If a critical support fails, there is a rush in decision making and options are limited. A helpful contingency plan helps to differentiate between inconvenience and immediate risks and is realistic as to what can be put into action outside of business hours.

Why this matters for case managers

Value for case managers may be realised between formal decisions, in a handover, at a provider change or where an everyday situation brings into sharp focus that the provision agreed is not yet effective. The most effective answer is a blend of the direction given by the participant and brief documentation, clear accountability for each party, and a realistic review date. That way there is less need for coordination noise and any coordination noise that is needed is kept in the professional and provider accountability.

What better coordination looks like

Case managers can support a “layered” plan beginning with what the person wants, what the essential dependencies are, and who the person has actually agreed can be a backup.

Prioritise the critical supports

Determine activities that can be postponed, those that can be accommodated on the same day and those that must be acted on immediately.

Build layers

Outline the preferable alternative, a second viable option and the emergency route, with limitations and contact information.

Rehearse the handover

Ensure that the backup possesses the information, consent, access and competencies before they are required.

Make the change last

Specific change is useful because it is something to practise and it is small enough to review. Work out who is going to do the first steps, where the decision will be documented and when the person will be asked if it helped. If the approach relies on multiple services, check each service's readiness, one by one, and not because there was a meeting during which the services agreed. Keep what is working, change what isn't and eliminate temporary solutions that no longer support the desired end goal.

Questions for the next review

What would prioritising the critical supports look like from the person's point of view?

Which is fixed, and which is assumed or still being waited on?

What will the person and team observe that will indicate if this approach is working?

Keep the boundary clear

A contingency plan should not include responsibilities given to people and organisations which are not willing to take them. It should not treat emergency services as a routine fallback, or place too much expectation on informal supports.

A practical example

For a participant who requires night support, the team agreed a provider-cancellation pathway, and verified the secondary contact and the urgent-response threshold. The participant was aware of what would occur when the normal worker is not available and who will call.