Assessing Online Risk Within Digital Care Planning in Adult Social Care
Digital care planning now sits at the centre of safeguarding practice in adult social care. Online activity, digital communication and device use are no longer peripheral risks; they directly shape people’s safety, wellbeing and autonomy. Providers must therefore assess online risk with the same rigour applied to physical environments and personal care. This article sets out how services embed online risk assessment into everyday digital care planning, aligning safeguarding practice with governance and inspection expectations. It should be read alongside the Knowledge Hub resources on digital safeguarding and risk and digital care planning, as effective risk management depends on integrating safeguarding logic directly into care planning and review cycles.
Why online risk must sit inside core care planning
Historically, online risk has been treated as an add-on: a safeguarding note, a one-off incident, or a standalone digital policy. This approach no longer reflects reality. For many people, digital spaces are where relationships form, money is managed, support is accessed and identity is expressed. Risk assessment that ignores this dimension is incomplete.
From an operational perspective, online risk should be assessed wherever care planning already addresses:
- Daily routines and independence
- Relationships and social inclusion
- Financial management and support
- Communication needs and preferences
- Emotional wellbeing and behaviour
Embedding online risk into these domains allows providers to move away from reactive safeguarding and towards anticipatory, proportionate support.
A structured approach to assessing online risk
Effective assessment focuses on how technology is actually used, not abstract threats. A practical assessment framework should explore:
- Access: What devices, platforms and accounts the person uses independently or with support.
- Understanding: The person’s awareness of privacy, scams, boundaries and consequences.
- Relationships: Who contacts the person online, how those relationships began, and how power dynamics operate.
- Decision-making: Capacity for specific digital decisions (e.g. sharing images, sending money, granting access).
- Support needs: Where prompts, supervision or shared decision-making are required.
- Safeguards: Existing controls such as privacy settings, spending limits, and agreed staff responses.
This information should be captured in plain language within the care plan, not hidden in specialist documentation that frontline staff rarely consult.
Operational example 1: Online grooming risk in supported living
Context: A young adult in supported living forms a relationship through a gaming platform. The contact quickly moves to private messaging, with requests for personal images and pressure to keep the relationship secret from staff.
Support approach: The service recognises this as a potential grooming risk and addresses it through care planning rather than immediate restriction. The focus is on understanding, consent and safety.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The keyworker explores how the relationship developed and what the person believes about the other individual. Capacity is assessed specifically in relation to sharing images and managing secrecy. Staff work with the person to agree boundaries around what is shared online and to identify warning signs. Privacy settings are reviewed together, and a clear plan is added to the care plan outlining who the person can talk to if they feel pressured. Staff receive guidance on how to discuss the relationship without judgement.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Evidence includes the updated care plan section on online relationships, recorded capacity reasoning, agreed safeguards, and review notes showing increased openness and reduced secrecy. Governance oversight is demonstrated through manager review and safeguarding supervision discussions.
Operational example 2: Financial risk linked to online shopping and scams
Context: A person receiving homecare uses online shopping extensively and has previously lost money to fraudulent websites. The person values independence and resists limits on spending.
Support approach: Rather than removing access, the service embeds financial digital risk into care planning, balancing autonomy with protection.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff assess how purchases are made, what cues the person uses to judge legitimacy, and where mistakes occur. Capacity is considered for high-value purchases. Together, staff and the person agree practical safeguards: spending alerts, pre-approved websites, and support to review unfamiliar offers. The care plan clearly sets out what staff can and cannot do (e.g. support to review, not authorise spending).
How effectiveness is evidenced: Evidence includes reduced incidents of financial loss, documented safeguards in the care plan, and audit data showing improved financial stability. Commissioner assurance is supported by clear rationale for why safeguards are proportionate and consented.
Operational example 3: Managing online harassment alongside behaviour support
Context: A tenant repeatedly posts aggressive messages on social media following conflicts in the service, escalating tensions and triggering safeguarding concerns.
Support approach: The service integrates online behaviour into the existing behaviour support framework rather than treating it separately.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff analyse triggers for online posts and link them to emotional regulation difficulties. The care plan includes proactive strategies (cool-down routines, staff check-ins) and clear expectations around online conduct. Any consideration of restriction (such as limiting access during periods of distress) is time-limited, reviewed and clearly justified.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Evidence includes reduced incident frequency, updated behaviour support plans, and review records showing that online behaviour is addressed through support rather than punitive control.
Commissioner and regulator expectations
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect digital care plans to demonstrate proactive risk assessment, not reactive restriction. Providers should be able to show how online risks are identified early, addressed proportionately and reviewed regularly, with outcomes tracked over time.
Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): Inspectors will look for care that is safe, person-centred and rights-based. They will expect to see capacity considered for digital decisions, least-restrictive practice applied, and care plans that clearly guide staff behaviour. Poor or generic digital risk planning is likely to raise concerns about safety and governance.
Governance mechanisms that support effective online risk planning
Reliable practice depends on consistent governance. Providers should ensure:
- Digital risk prompts are embedded in care planning templates.
- Care plan audits explicitly test online risk content.
- Supervision includes discussion of digital safeguarding scenarios.
- Review cycles track whether agreed safeguards remain appropriate.
When online risk assessment is treated as core care planning business, services are better equipped to support independence while evidencing safe, defensible practice.