Consent, Capacity and Digital Restrictive Practices in Adult Social Care
Digital safeguarding increasingly involves decisions that restrict or monitor a person’s access to technology, online platforms or communication tools. These decisions can quickly become restrictive practices if not carefully assessed, documented and reviewed. Providers must apply consent and capacity principles rigorously, ensuring that any digital restriction is lawful, proportionate and clearly linked to safeguarding need. This requires consistent application across services, supported by strong digital safeguarding and risk governance and accurate recording within digital care planning systems.
Understanding Digital Restrictive Practices
Digital restrictive practices may include blocking websites, monitoring messages, limiting device use, or restricting access to social media. While often introduced to reduce risk, they directly affect autonomy and rights and must be treated with the same scrutiny as physical restrictions.
Operational Example 1: Monitoring Online Activity
Context: A person with learning disabilities is exposed to online grooming.
Support approach: Temporary monitoring is introduced alongside education and support.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff review activity with the person and adjust restrictions as risk reduces.
Evidence of effectiveness: Capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are clearly recorded.
Operational Example 2: Restricting Device Access During Crisis
Context: A mental health service limits phone access during an acute safeguarding episode.
Support approach: Restrictions are time-limited and reviewed daily.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff explain decisions and involve the person in reviews.
Evidence of effectiveness: Review notes demonstrate proportionality and reduction of restriction.
Operational Example 3: Capacity Fluctuation and Digital Controls
Context: A person’s capacity fluctuates due to illness.
Support approach: Restrictions are adjusted in response to capacity changes.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff reassess capacity and document changes promptly.
Evidence of effectiveness: Records show dynamic decision-making rather than blanket controls.
Commissioner Expectation
Commissioners expect providers to evidence that digital restrictions are used only when necessary, reviewed regularly, and removed as soon as risk reduces.
Regulator / Inspector Expectation
The CQC expects providers to apply the Mental Capacity Act consistently, demonstrate least-restrictive practice, and evidence clear rationale for any digital restriction.
Governance and Review
Strong providers review digital restrictive practices through safeguarding panels, MCA audits and quality reviews, ensuring oversight and learning.
Conclusion
Digital safeguarding decisions must balance protection and autonomy. Applying consent, capacity and least-restrictive principles consistently is essential to lawful, ethical and defensible practice.