Embedding Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) in Supported Living: A Practical Operational Guide

Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) is a key principle within adult safeguarding. It emphasises that safeguarding processes should focus on the outcomes people want rather than simply completing procedural steps. In supported living environments, MSP ensures that individuals remain central to decisions about their safety, independence and wellbeing. These approaches must sit clearly within strong supported living risk management frameworks and align with wider supported living service models and best practice. Commissioners increasingly expect providers to demonstrate that safeguarding processes respect people’s wishes and preferences, while CQC inspectors assess whether safeguarding responses genuinely improve the individual’s experience of safety and control.

Understanding the principles of MSP

Traditional safeguarding approaches often focused heavily on procedures and investigation outcomes. While these processes remain important, they sometimes overlooked the individual’s perspective. MSP shifts the focus towards understanding what the person wants to achieve through safeguarding intervention.

For some individuals, the desired outcome may be stopping harmful behaviour. For others, it may involve restoring relationships, improving communication or simply feeling heard and respected during the safeguarding process.

Embedding MSP in everyday practice

Supported living staff should view MSP as part of daily support rather than something that only occurs during formal safeguarding investigations. Staff can encourage people to express concerns, discuss boundaries and participate actively in decisions about their support.

Operational example 1: a tenant reports feeling uncomfortable about a neighbour entering their flat without permission. Rather than immediately imposing restrictions, staff explore the tenant’s desired outcome. The support approach focuses on helping the individual communicate boundaries confidently while addressing the behaviour with the neighbour. Day-to-day delivery includes staff facilitating a discussion between both tenants and reinforcing privacy expectations. Effectiveness is evidenced through improved communication and the tenant reporting greater confidence in managing boundaries.

Supporting people to express their wishes

Some individuals may find it difficult to articulate their preferences during safeguarding discussions. Providers should therefore ensure that accessible communication tools are available. This may include visual aids, advocacy support or extended time for discussion.

Operational example 2: a tenant with communication difficulties experiences bullying from a peer in the household. The support approach involves working with an independent advocate and using visual communication tools to understand the tenant’s wishes. Day-to-day delivery includes staff supporting the tenant during safeguarding meetings and ensuring their views are represented clearly. Effectiveness is evidenced through the tenant reporting feeling heard and the safeguarding plan reflecting their preferences.

Balancing personal choice with safety

MSP does not mean that all decisions are left solely to the individual, particularly where serious harm is involved. Instead, providers must balance respect for autonomy with their duty of care. Staff should explain risks clearly and support individuals to make informed choices wherever possible.

Commissioner expectation: commissioners expect providers to demonstrate that safeguarding responses prioritise the person’s desired outcomes while ensuring that serious risks are addressed appropriately.

Regulator / Inspector expectation: CQC inspectors expect safeguarding approaches to be person-centred, with evidence that people are involved in decisions affecting their safety and wellbeing.

Integrating MSP into safeguarding investigations

When safeguarding investigations occur, MSP should shape how providers conduct the process. Staff should ask the individual what they want to happen and keep them informed throughout the investigation. Clear communication reduces anxiety and ensures the person remains central to the process.

Operational example 3: a safeguarding concern arises regarding financial exploitation by an acquaintance. The support approach begins by discussing with the tenant what outcome they want. The individual wishes to stop the exploitation but maintain social contact. Day-to-day delivery includes financial safeguards, staff support during social interactions and guidance on recognising manipulation. Effectiveness is evidenced through the cessation of financial loss while maintaining the tenant’s chosen social relationship.

Governance and organisational learning

Embedding MSP requires organisational commitment. Managers should review safeguarding cases to ensure the individual’s voice is recorded and outcomes are evaluated against their wishes. Staff training should emphasise communication skills, advocacy and ethical decision-making.

Providers should also examine whether MSP principles are reflected in policies, supervision and quality assurance processes. Learning from safeguarding cases can highlight how well services support people to participate in decisions about their own safety.

What good looks like

When MSP is fully embedded, safeguarding becomes a collaborative process rather than a purely procedural one. People feel respected, involved and empowered to shape the outcomes that affect their lives.

Providers that adopt MSP demonstrate strong person-centred values alongside robust safeguarding practice. This reassures commissioners and regulators that the service not only protects people from harm but also respects their rights, dignity and independence.

---