Integrated Risk Management Across Health and Social Care in Physical Disability Services
People with physical disabilities often face overlapping clinical and social risks that cannot be managed in isolation. Falls, infections, respiratory issues and loss of function are influenced by daily support as much as by medical treatment. Effective providers integrate health and social care risk management into a single, coherent approach that balances safety with autonomy. This article explores how integrated risk management works in practice, drawing on Physical Disability: Health Integration, Delegated Tasks & MDT Working and Physical Disability: Service Models & Pathways.
Why fragmented risk management fails
Risk is often separated into “clinical” and “social” categories, leading to gaps in accountability. Health professionals may focus on medical risk, while social care focuses on daily safety. Without integration, risks are either duplicated or missed entirely.
Principles of integrated risk management
Effective integration involves:
- Shared understanding of risks across disciplines
- Agreed mitigation strategies
- Positive risk-taking frameworks
- Regular review and adjustment
Operational example 1: Falls risk management
Context: A person experiences frequent near-falls despite mobility aids.
Support approach: The provider integrates therapy, equipment and daily support.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Therapists review gait and equipment, staff adjust support during transfers, and environmental changes are made. Daily observations inform MDT reviews.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Reduced falls and improved confidence.
Operational example 2: Infection risk across care settings
Context: A person experiences recurrent infections linked to personal care routines.
Support approach: Health guidance is embedded into daily care.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff follow agreed hygiene protocols, monitor indicators and escalate concerns promptly. Learning is shared across the team.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Reduced infection rates and timely escalation.
Operational example 3: Positive risk-taking to support independence
Context: A person wants to attempt activities that carry increased risk.
Support approach: Risks are assessed collaboratively.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Risks and mitigations are documented, staff are briefed, and progress is reviewed regularly with health professionals.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Increased independence without increased harm.
Commissioner expectation (explicit)
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect integrated risk management that balances safety and autonomy. They look for evidence of MDT involvement, positive risk-taking and measurable outcomes.
Regulator / Inspector expectation (explicit)
Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g. CQC): Inspectors expect risks to be identified, managed and reviewed effectively. Fragmented or outdated risk assessments raise safety concerns.
Governance and assurance
Providers should govern risk through integrated risk registers, MDT reviews, audits, incident analysis and continuous learning. This ensures risks are managed proactively and transparently.