Legal Duties and Proportionality in PBS Decision-Making
Positive Behaviour Support operates within a defined legal environment that requires decisions to be lawful, necessary and proportionate. Within the Human Rights, Legal Context & Ethical Decision-Making framework, and in alignment with the core principles and values of PBS, providers must be able to evidence why specific interventions are used and how they protect rights rather than erode them.
This article examines how legal duties translate into day-to-day PBS practice, particularly where risk, restrictive practices and safeguarding intersect.
Understanding proportionality in PBS
Proportionality is a key legal concept in PBS. Any restriction on a person’s liberty or autonomy must be the least restrictive option available and directly linked to a legitimate aim, such as preventing serious harm.
In PBS, proportionality requires continual reassessment. What was once necessary may no longer be justified as skills develop or environments change.
Operational example: reviewing long-standing restrictions
A long-term residential service supported a person with historic use of locked kitchen access due to past incidents. A PBS review questioned whether the restriction remained proportionate.
The support approach shifted towards graded access, staff coaching and environmental adaptations. Daily practice included risk monitoring and positive reinforcement of safe behaviours.
Effectiveness was evidenced through increased independence, reduced frustration and eventual removal of the restriction, supported by clear documentation.
Legal accountability and documentation
Legal defensibility in PBS relies heavily on documentation. Decisions must be clearly recorded, justified and reviewed. Poor recording undermines otherwise good practice.
Providers should ensure PBS plans explicitly link behaviours, risks, interventions and review outcomes, creating a transparent audit trail.
Operational example: safeguarding-driven PBS escalation
In a community service, escalating self-injury triggered safeguarding concerns. A multidisciplinary PBS review considered whether additional supervision was necessary.
The approach combined temporary increased support with intensive functional assessment and therapeutic input. Daily delivery focused on proactive engagement rather than containment.
Evidence of effectiveness included stabilisation of behaviour, reduced safeguarding alerts and a return to less intensive support.
Commissioner expectation: legal compliance and review
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate that PBS interventions meet legal thresholds and are reviewed regularly. Long-standing restrictions without evidence of review are viewed as poor practice.
Clear review schedules and outcome reporting are essential.
Regulator expectation: scrutiny of restrictive practice use
Regulator expectation (CQC): Inspectors closely examine how and why restrictive practices are used. They expect PBS to actively reduce restriction rather than normalise it.
Services must show learning from incidents and adaptation of support.
Operational example: incident-led PBS improvement
Following a serious incident, a provider undertook a PBS audit across services. This identified inconsistent thresholds for intervention.
Revised PBS guidance, staff training and enhanced governance reviews were introduced. Effectiveness was evidenced through reduced incidents and improved inspection outcomes.
Embedding legal literacy in PBS teams
Strong PBS practice depends on staff understanding legal duties, not just behavioural strategies. Embedding legal literacy into training and supervision supports confident, ethical decision-making.