Digital Safeguarding in Adult Social Care: Identifying Technology-Enabled Harm
Digital safeguarding has become a core part of adult social care risk management. Within Digital Safeguarding, Online Risk & Technology-Enabled Harm, providers must now assess risks arising from devices, platforms and data use alongside traditional safeguarding concerns. These risks increasingly intersect with Digital Care Planning, where technology both supports independence and introduces new forms of vulnerability.
This article explores how adult social care providers identify technology-enabled harm and embed digital safeguarding into everyday delivery, governance and assurance.
What is technology-enabled harm in adult social care?
Technology-enabled harm refers to abuse, exploitation or risk facilitated or amplified by digital tools. In adult social care, this can include:
- Online financial exploitation and scams
- Coercive control via messaging or tracking apps
- Abuse through social media or online communities
- Misuse of assistive or monitoring technology
- Loss of privacy or data leading to harm
These risks affect people across care settings, particularly those with cognitive impairment, communication needs or reduced digital literacy.
Why digital safeguarding must be explicit, not assumed
Many safeguarding frameworks implicitly assume risk is physical or face-to-face. As care becomes more digitally mediated, this assumption creates blind spots. Providers that do not explicitly consider digital risk may miss early indicators of harm.
Effective digital safeguarding requires deliberate inclusion in:
- Risk assessments
- Care planning
- Safeguarding policies
- Staff training and supervision
Operational example 1: Online financial exploitation identified through care review
Context: A domiciliary care service supported an individual with early dementia who used online banking independently. Staff noticed increased anxiety and frequent requests for reassurance about finances.
Support approach: During a routine care review, staff explored digital use and identified repeated online contact from unknown individuals requesting money.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The provider updated the care plan to include digital risk awareness, supported the individual to adjust privacy settings, and involved family and safeguarding partners. Staff recorded digital observations alongside financial wellbeing indicators.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Further contact ceased, anxiety reduced, and safeguarding records demonstrated timely intervention and multi-agency working.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect providers to recognise digital risk as part of safeguarding and to demonstrate that technology-enabled harm is identified, escalated and managed within existing safeguarding pathways.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Inspectors expect providers to understand emerging safeguarding risks, including online and digital harm, and to show that staff are trained to identify and respond appropriately.
Embedding digital safeguarding into risk assessment
Digital risk should be assessed explicitly. Effective approaches include:
- Including digital access and device use in initial assessments
- Reviewing who controls passwords, devices and accounts
- Considering consent and capacity in relation to digital activity
- Recording changes in digital behaviour as risk indicators
This ensures digital safeguarding is proactive rather than reactive.
Operational example 2: Coercive control via messaging apps
Context: A supported living service noticed a person becoming withdrawn and refusing activities after receiving frequent messages during support hours.
Support approach: Staff explored digital communication patterns and identified coercive messages from a former partner influencing decisions.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The provider worked with safeguarding leads to develop a safety plan, supported the individual to block contacts, and updated risk assessments to include digital coercion indicators.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Engagement improved, safeguarding actions were documented, and inspectors later noted strong awareness of non-physical abuse.
Governance and oversight of digital safeguarding
Providers should ensure digital safeguarding is visible in governance through:
- Safeguarding logs that include digital risk categories
- Regular thematic review of technology-related incidents
- Board or senior leadership oversight of emerging risks
This prevents digital harm being hidden within generic safeguarding data.
Operational example 3: Misuse of monitoring technology
Context: A family member requested constant access to live monitoring data for a person receiving care at home.
Support approach: The provider reviewed consent, capacity and proportionality, balancing safety with privacy and autonomy.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Access levels were adjusted, decision-making recorded in care plans, and staff trained on ethical use of monitoring tools.
How effectiveness is evidenced: The individual’s privacy was protected, family concerns addressed, and governance records demonstrated defensible decision-making.
What good looks like
Strong digital safeguarding is visible, deliberate and proportionate. Providers recognise technology-enabled harm early, act consistently, and can evidence how digital risks are managed alongside traditional safeguarding concerns.