Best Interest Decisions in Safeguarding: Evidence, Proportionality and Accountability
Best interest decisions sit at the most sensitive intersection of safeguarding, legal compliance and ethical care. Where a person lacks capacity, providers carry significant responsibility to act lawfully, proportionately and transparently. Poorly evidenced best interest decisions are a frequent trigger for enforcement action and safeguarding criticism.
This article builds on the Mental Capacity, Consent & Safeguarding Decision-Making framework and links directly to safeguarding risks highlighted within Understanding Types of Abuse. It focuses on how providers make and evidence defensible best interest decisions.
What Makes a Safeguarding Best Interest Decision Lawful
A lawful best interest decision is not a professional opinion. It is a structured process that considers the individual’s wishes, feelings, values, and the least restrictive options available. In safeguarding contexts, this process must be explicit and clearly recorded.
Providers must be able to demonstrate that decisions were made with the person wherever possible, even where capacity is lacking.
Operational Example 1: Emergency Protection Decisions
Context: An adult lacking capacity was exposed to immediate physical harm within their living environment.
Support approach: An urgent best interest decision authorised temporary removal while safeguarding enquiries progressed.
Day-to-day delivery: The decision was reviewed daily, with advocacy involvement and ongoing consultation.
Evidence of effectiveness: Clear documentation prevented criticism despite the restrictive nature of the intervention.
Consultation and Involvement in Safeguarding Decisions
Best interest decisions must involve relevant people wherever appropriate, including family members, advocates and professionals. Failure to evidence consultation is a common regulatory finding.
Where disagreements arise, providers must show how views were weighed and how final decisions were reached.
Operational Example 2: Disputed Family Views
Context: Family members disagreed about safeguarding actions for a person lacking capacity.
Support approach: A best interest meeting documented all views and explored risks and alternatives.
Day-to-day delivery: Decisions were reviewed and updated as new information emerged.
Evidence of effectiveness: Transparent records demonstrated fairness and accountability.
Proportionality and Restrictive Practice
Safeguarding best interest decisions must be proportionate. Providers must evidence why less restrictive options were insufficient and how restrictions are reviewed and reduced over time.
This is particularly important where safeguarding actions limit contact, freedom of movement or personal choice.
Operational Example 3: Restrictive Safeguarding Measures
Context: A safeguarding plan limited unsupervised community access due to repeated harm.
Support approach: Restrictions were framed as temporary and reviewed against clear risk indicators.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff monitored outcomes and gradually reduced restrictions as risks decreased.
Evidence of effectiveness: The provider demonstrated active reduction of restriction, meeting regulatory expectations.
Commissioner Expectation: Accountability and Review
Commissioners expect best interest safeguarding decisions to be accountable, reviewed and linked to measurable outcomes. Static or indefinite restrictions raise significant concern.
Regulator Expectation: Rights-Based Safeguarding
The CQC expects providers to protect people from harm while respecting rights and dignity. Best interest decisions must show balanced judgement, not risk-averse practice.
Embedding Best Interest Governance
Strong providers embed best interest decision-making into safeguarding governance, including senior oversight, audit and learning reviews.