Just Enough Support in Adult Social Care: Applying Least Restrictive Practice in Daily Delivery
Share
Just enough support is not a vague aspiration in adult social care; it is a legal, ethical and operational requirement. Providers are expected to actively enable independence while avoiding unnecessary restriction, over-support or risk aversion. Least restrictive practice underpins the Care Act, Mental Capacity Act and CQC’s expectations of personalised care, yet remains one of the most frequently misunderstood principles in frontline delivery.
This article should be read alongside wider person-centred practice guidance and risk enablement frameworks within the Knowledge Hub, including Strengths-Based Approaches and Positive Risk-Taking & Risk Enablement.
What “Just Enough Support” Means in Practice
Just enough support means providing the minimum level of assistance required to achieve agreed outcomes safely and lawfully, while maximising autonomy. It is not about withdrawing support prematurely, nor about fixed staffing models that ignore individual capability.
In practice, this requires staff to continuously assess what a person can do for themselves today, not what they struggled with historically. Support should flex as skills, confidence or health change, rather than remaining static because “this is how it’s always been done”.
Operational Example: Reducing Prompting in Daily Living
A provider supporting an adult with a learning disability reviewed morning routines during a six-week skills development programme. Staff moved from full verbal prompting for dressing to visual cues and time-based reminders. The outcome was increased independence without increased risk, supported by daily observation notes and weekly review.
Critically, staff recorded not only what support was removed, but why it remained safe to do so, demonstrating defensible decision-making rather than arbitrary reduction.
Least Restrictive Practice and the Mental Capacity Act
Least restrictive practice is explicitly required under the Mental Capacity Act. Any act done or decision made on behalf of a person lacking capacity must be the least restrictive option available.
Providers must evidence:
- Capacity assessments that are decision-specific
- Best interest decisions that consider less restrictive alternatives
- Clear rationale where restrictions remain necessary
CQC inspectors frequently scrutinise whether restrictions are actively reviewed or simply carried forward without challenge.
Operational Example: Reviewing Environmental Restrictions
In a supported living service, keypad door locks were originally installed due to absconding risks. A review following positive behavioural support showed improved risk awareness. Locks were replaced with staff check-ins and travel training, reducing restriction while maintaining safety.
This change was supported by updated risk assessments, staff training records and evidence of family involvement in the decision.
Commissioner Expectations Around Proportionality
Commissioners increasingly expect providers to demonstrate how staffing levels and controls are proportionate to current need. Over-support is now viewed as a quality risk, particularly where it undermines independence outcomes.
In tender evaluations and contract monitoring, commissioners look for:
- Clear links between assessed need and support hours
- Evidence of support reduction where outcomes improve
- Mechanisms for increasing support rapidly if risk escalates
Operational Example: Flexible Staffing Rather Than Fixed Ratios
A provider replaced fixed 2:1 support with flexible staffing based on time-of-day risk profiles. Peak support was maintained for medication and community access, while quieter periods focused on independence. This approach reduced restriction without increasing incidents.
Safeguarding and Risk Management Considerations
Least restrictive practice does not mean unmanaged risk. Providers must show how risks are identified, mitigated and reviewed, not avoided entirely.
Safeguarding frameworks should explicitly recognise that positive risk-taking can support wellbeing, provided decisions are documented and reviewed.
Governance and Assurance
Strong governance is essential. Providers should have:
- Audits of restrictive practices
- Management oversight of support reductions
- Clear escalation pathways if independence declines
This ensures just enough support is consistently applied, rather than dependent on individual staff confidence.
💼 Rapid Support Products (fast turnaround options)
- ⚡ 48-Hour Tender Triage
- 🆘 Bid Rescue Session – 60 minutes
- ✍️ Score Booster – Tender Answer Rewrite (500–2000 words)
- 🧩 Tender Answer Blueprint
- 📝 Tender Proofreading & Light Editing
- 🔍 Pre-Tender Readiness Audit
- 📁 Tender Document Review
🚀 Need a Bid Writing Quote?
If you’re exploring support for an upcoming tender or framework, request a quick, no-obligation quote. I’ll review your documents and respond with:
- A clear scope of work
- Estimated days required
- A fixed fee quote
- Any risks, considerations or quick wins