Auditing Moving and Handling Practice: What Commissioners and Inspectors Expect Providers to Evidence
Share
Auditing moving and handling is a routine requirement in physical disability services, yet audits often focus on training records and completed assessments rather than what actually happens in daily practice. This creates a false sense of assurance, leaving gaps between documented processes and lived experience. Commissioners and inspectors increasingly expect providers to evidence that audits test real practice, support independence and identify restrictive approaches rather than simply confirming compliance.
This article explores how physical disability services can audit moving and handling in ways that genuinely improve safety and quality. It should be read alongside Quality Assurance & Auditing and Physical Disability – Quality, Safety & Governance.
Why traditional audits fall short
Many audits confirm that assessments exist, training is in date and equipment is serviced. While important, this does not show whether people are being supported to move safely, with dignity and as independently as possible.
Without observing practice, audits miss inconsistency, over-support and hidden restriction.
Commissioner and inspector expectations
Two expectations are consistently applied:
Expectation 1: Evidence of practice, not just policy. Inspectors expect audits to reflect what staff actually do, not just what is written.
Expectation 2: Audit outcomes linked to improvement. Commissioners expect audit findings to drive action, review and learning.
Designing audits that test lived practice
Effective audits include observation of transfers, review of handling plans against practice and conversations with people about how support feels.
Audit tools should ask whether practice promotes independence or embeds restriction.
Operational example 1: Observed practice audits
A provider introduced observed transfer audits focusing on dignity, pacing and enablement. The audit revealed over-support in one service, prompting targeted coaching.
Testing proportionality and restriction
Audits should explicitly identify restrictive handling practices and test whether they are justified and reviewed.
Operational example 2: Restriction-focused audit questions
A service added audit questions asking whether equipment or full assistance was used as default. This highlighted unnecessary hoist use and triggered reviews.
Using audits to improve consistency
Variation between staff is a common risk factor. Audits should test consistency across shifts and teams.
Operational example 3: Cross-shift audit sampling
By auditing practice across different shifts, a provider identified inconsistent transfer approaches and addressed them through supervision.
Governance and reporting
Audit findings should be reviewed at management level and shared with commissioners where appropriate. Clear action plans and follow-up dates demonstrate effective governance.
Audits as a quality improvement tool
In physical disability services, audits should strengthen practice, not just prove compliance. Providers that audit moving and handling effectively are better placed to evidence quality, independence and inspection readiness.
💼 Rapid Support Products (fast turnaround options)
- ⚡ 48-Hour Tender Triage
- 🆘 Bid Rescue Session – 60 minutes
- ✍️ Score Booster – Tender Answer Rewrite (500–2000 words)
- 🧩 Tender Answer Blueprint
- 📝 Tender Proofreading & Light Editing
- 🔍 Pre-Tender Readiness Audit
- 📁 Tender Document Review
🚀 Need a Bid Writing Quote?
If you’re exploring support for an upcoming tender or framework, request a quick, no-obligation quote. I’ll review your documents and respond with:
- A clear scope of work
- Estimated days required
- A fixed fee quote
- Any risks, considerations or quick wins