carePhysics
Ten evidence-informed principles connect what matters to people with understandable choices, practical support, and shared learning. Human wisdom and research guide the work; technology and AI assist with a defined purpose.
The framework
CarePhysics brings together research, professional knowledge, local experience, and the perspectives of people receiving and providing care. It helps teams ask better questions and make support more understandable, useful, and workable.
Principles 1–5 are the Human Foundations. They help us understand the person and the life around care. Principles 6–10 put care into practice. They connect that understanding with worthwhile interactions, supported pathways, useful tools, and continuing learning.
An organization brings its own mission, services, staffing, and professional responsibilities. Applying these principles does not require adopting Genus technology.
Principles 1–5
Begin with the person’s life, choices, relationships, and practical circumstances. Each principle gives the team a question to carry into the next encounter.
See the Person
Begin with identity, relationships, preferences, practical resources, and what the person wants care to protect. Recognize the caregiver’s needs separately. Collect only the context needed for the task, and keep personal reports distinct from clinical assessment.
Make Understanding Possible
Make facts, uncertainty, choices, and the next source of help understandable. Check the explanation rather than test the person. People can understand the same information and still make different choices.
Support the Next Chosen Step
Distinguish understanding, motivation, opportunity, and practical barriers. Offer a manageable next step that serves the person’s own purpose. A reminder cannot create transportation or capacity, and informed refusal is not a design failure.
Help People Feel Heard
Preserve people’s voices, clarify disagreements, and turn general offers into understood commitments. Messages need routes for questions, correction, and response. A warm tone is valuable only when the information and follow-through are dependable.
Make Belonging Practical
Connect people with chosen supporters, professionals, volunteers, and services they can actually reach. A directory entry, an introduction, an attended visit, and a sense of belonging are different achievements. Make contribution possible without making it compulsory.
Principles 6–10
Turn understanding into support people can use. Make the purpose, accepted responsibilities, access routes, and opportunity to learn clear.
Make Each Interaction Worthwhile
Design the whole encounter, not only the content. Decide whether its purpose is understanding, a chosen decision, a skill, contribution, feedback, or enjoyment. Different purposes need different forms of support and different ways to judge usefulness.
Turn Good Intentions into Supported Progress
Connect encounters through purpose, timing, accepted responsibility, permissions, confirmation, alternatives, and review. A pathway can include content, calls, visits, meetings, and activities. It is not simply a playlist, and it does not replace a clinician-approved care plan.
Make Help Easier to Reach
Begin with one useful task. Make the content accessible, the controls familiar, and first-use assistance available. Phone, print, digital access, and personal help should carry consistent service facts and responsibility rather than create separate standards of support.
Bring Human Wisdom Within Reach
Give assistance a bounded purpose, suitable sources, actual permissions, a reviewer, and a human response route. Keep research, local facts, personal accounts, and examples separate. A generated draft is not an agreement, a completed action, or evidence of a result.
Learn What Helps
Evaluate the support, not a person’s worth, a family’s love, or staff commitment. Learn during an agreed encounter, invite feedback afterward, and examine changes over time. Keep benefit, burden, safety, access, and uncertainty in the same review.
Evidence
CarePhysics is an evidence-informed design framework. Research helps identify what may be worth trying; evaluation with the people using the support establishes what happens in a particular setting.
The framework separates the models that help us ask questions from the studies that examine specific interventions and outcomes. Evidence supporting a component does not validate the whole combination or a product built around it.
Organize a question or guide a practice. COM-B, for example, directs attention to capability, opportunity, and motivation before choosing a response.
Keep the population, setting, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and limitations attached to the finding. Findings belong to what was actually studied.
Identify the responsible practice, standard, and scope. Use the guidance that applies to the service and the people delivering it.
Describe what a team plans to try, the resources it needs, who reviews it, and how its usefulness will be examined locally.
Record the capability, version, configuration, setting, and verification date. A documented feature or deployment does not establish a benefit.
Make choices easier to discuss. The book’s fictional family and connection maps are teaching examples, not testimonials or measured results.
COM-B helps investigate capability, opportunity, and motivation. Self-Determination Theory directs attention to autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The Fogg Behavior Model asks whether a chosen action is manageable when a prompt arrives.
Social learning and Social Physics help teams examine how useful knowledge moves through relationships. Communication methods such as teach-back guide how an explanation is checked with the person.
Theory of Constraints asks what is limiting the agreed result. Plan–Do–Study–Act provides a way to examine a change. The Age-Friendly 4Ms and caregiver-support approaches bring distinct care priorities into the discussion.
A model helps frame an investigation. Its relevance does not supply a predicted improvement for a particular service, message, or software feature.
The author-held rapid review informing the manuscript uses Strong, Moderate, Emerging, Plausible but untested, and Unsupported/contradicted. These are that review’s source-specific judgments, not formal GRADE ratings or grades assigned to the ten principles. They are not a peer-reviewed classification.
When a published review reports certainty by outcome, retain its own terminology. An ungraded source should remain ungraded. Include mixed findings, missing follow-up, and differences between the study setting and the proposed application.
For each proposed claim, record what was read, who reviewed it, when it was reviewed, what it supports, and what remains unestablished. The research library provides source-linked reading paths; it is not a claim that every application has been tested.
Learning & outcomes
The ten principles inform nine areas where we seek improvement. These are questions to investigate, with measures suited to the people and setting. They are not guaranteed results or a one-to-one score for each principle.
Start with what matters to the people involved. Define the actual support being tried, the baseline and comparison, the review period, the measures, and the person authorized to make a change.
Include the work of preparation, checking, corrections, travel, family coordination, and unanswered requests. Record who could not use the offer and whose perspective is missing.
Keep reach, understanding, a first chosen action, useful participation, outcomes, and attributable impact distinct. A sent message is not a completed conversation; attendance alone does not establish belonging or improved health.
Scoring evaluates the support. It does not rank a family’s love, a person’s worth, or staff commitment. Agree when the findings should lead to continuing, adapting, pausing, or expanding the approach.
Start with one need
Choose a real situation: an unanswered question, an introductory visit, a handoff, or a recurring task that creates avoidable work. The people receiving and providing the support help define what should improve.
Ask what matters, what already helps, and what makes the next step difficult. Consider the caregiver’s needs and the team’s capacity in their own right.
Bring relevant research and professional guidance together with verified service facts. Keep findings, local information, and proposed changes distinguishable.
Agree on the purpose, people responsible, permissions, access routes, and response when help is needed. AI may assist with a defined task; responsible people review the work.
Give the change an owner and a review point. Ask what helped and what created burden. Return to contributors with what changed, and credit what they taught the team.
Practical tools
Content, interactions, and delivery tools serve the chosen purpose. Review the complete experience, including the human response and the work needed to follow through.
Make the source, audience, purpose, and next step clear. Check accuracy, language, accessibility, local service facts, and who can answer a question. Keep an approved version and a review date.
Ask whether the encounter offers understanding, a choice, a useful skill, connection, feedback, or enjoyment. Respect the option to decline. Check practical fit and the effort required from everyone involved.
Bring a resource, activity, or question into a recognizable format. Connect it with why it matters, a feasible next step, and an actual route to help.
Use a timely prompt or encouragement when it supports a step the person has chosen. Check whether information, transport, time, or service capacity is the real barrier before adding another reminder.
Ready when you are
Book a 30-minute call. We set up a working preview under your name, with sample people and sample notes, so a scheduler, a nurse, and a family member can try real workflows before you decide anything.