Making Safeguarding Personal: Balancing Choice, Consent and Positive Risk-Taking in Adult Social Care

Safeguarding often sounds clinical in tenders — full of policies, processes, and referrals. But the real test of safeguarding is whether the person feels safe, heard, and in control. A strong approach links Making Safeguarding Personal to safe, structured positive risk-taking, so protection does not become paternalism and choice does not become unmanaged risk.

That’s where ‘Making Safeguarding Personal’ (MSP) comes in.

It’s not just a phrase — it’s a shift. A shift from “What’s the risk?” to “What matters to you?” In operational terms, MSP means the person’s outcomes drive the safeguarding plan: what they want to happen, what they are worried about, what feels safe, and what support they will accept.

What “personal” safeguarding looks like in day-to-day practice

MSP is not “agreeing with everything”. It is a disciplined way of working that balances:

• Safety: immediate protection actions where harm is likely or escalating.
• Rights and choice: supporting people to make informed decisions, including decisions others may find unwise.
• Proportionate response: doing enough to reduce risk without taking over someone’s life.
• Evidence: recording the person’s views, consent position, the rationale for actions, and how outcomes are reviewed.

In tenders and inspections, MSP is most convincing when you show what staff actually do: the conversations they have, how they check understanding, how they record consent, and how they review whether the person’s outcomes were achieved.

🎯 Commissioner expectation

Commissioner expectation: Commissioners want assurance that safeguarding is person-centred and legally literate. They look for evidence that people are involved in decisions, that risk is managed through co-produced planning, and that outcomes are measured (not just “actions completed”). They also want to see that the approach is consistent across staff, not dependent on one skilled practitioner.

🧾 Regulator / inspector expectation

Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): Inspectors typically test whether safeguarding is responsive, proportionate and respectful. They will look for evidence that people’s wishes are heard, that staff understand consent and choice, and that safeguarding actions do not become blanket restrictions. They also look for clear documentation of decision-making and review, including learning where outcomes were not achieved.

Where positive risk-taking fits (and where it doesn’t)

Positive risk-taking is not “taking risks for the sake of it”. It is:

• supporting choice with a clear understanding of foreseeable harms
• putting practical controls in place to reduce likelihood and impact
• reviewing quickly and changing the plan if risk increases

There are also situations where positive risk-taking is not appropriate without escalation — for example where there is a credible risk of serious harm, coercion, or exploitation, or where a person’s ability to make the decision is in question. MSP still applies, but safety actions may need to be immediate and led through safeguarding processes with multi-agency input.

How to run an MSP conversation that stands up in tenders

A tender-ready MSP approach can be described as a simple practice model:

1. Listen and clarify outcomes: “What do you want to happen now?” “What would make you feel safer?”
2. Check consent and pace: what the person is agreeing to now, what they are not ready for, and why.
3. Explore options: different safety routes, including informal supports and formal safeguarding actions.
4. Agree a co-produced safety plan: roles, boundaries, practical steps, and how support will be offered.
5. Set review points: what will be monitored, when it will be reviewed, and what would trigger escalation.

When written well, this shows evaluators that you have a repeatable method that staff can apply consistently.

Operational example 1: Co-produced safety plan with boundaries

💬 Example (expanded):
Context: A woman in supported living was experiencing controlling behaviour from a family member. She was anxious about conflict and worried support would be removed if she challenged it.
Support approach: Staff did not only report “a concern”; they held an MSP conversation about her outcomes: she wanted contact to continue, but with boundaries and less pressure. With her consent, staff supported her to identify “red line” behaviours and practical steps that would help her feel safer.
Day-to-day delivery detail: A co-produced safety plan was written in plain language, covering: agreed visiting arrangements, staff presence during visits when requested, a code word she could use to end contact, and a plan for how staff would respond to threats or intimidation. Staff recorded each contact episode factually and checked in afterwards using the person’s own words (“Did it feel safe?” “Did anything worry you?”).
How effectiveness is evidenced: Review notes show reduced distress, increased confidence in setting boundaries, and fewer incident logs related to coercive interactions. The plan included a defined escalation trigger (e.g., threats, financial demands, or intimidation), ensuring safety was not dependent on staff judgement alone.

Operational example 2: Positive risk-taking with a clear control plan

Context: A person supported wants to continue travelling independently to a local café, but there are concerns about vulnerability to exploitation and becoming disorientated.
Support approach: Staff use MSP to identify the person’s outcome: independence and normal life. Rather than banning the activity, the team develops a positive risk-taking plan with controls proportionate to the risk.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Controls include: route practice at quieter times, a “check-in” call on arrival and before leaving, a small card with key contacts and support prompts, agreed boundaries on money carried, and staff coaching on recognising approach behaviours. Staff also agree what the person wants staff to do if a check-in is missed (e.g., call first, then go to agreed locations).
How effectiveness is evidenced: The service tracks missed check-ins, incidents, and the person’s confidence. A two-week review confirms whether controls are working, and adjustments are recorded (for example, moving check-in times or changing the route). This shows empowerment plus governance, not unmanaged risk.

Operational example 3: When outcomes and safety conflict (and how you document it)

Context: A person wants to continue seeing a new “friend”, but staff observe signs of potential financial exploitation. The person is defensive and does not want any professional involvement.
Support approach: Staff apply MSP by respecting the person’s voice and exploring their outcomes (companionship, trust, autonomy), while also being professionally curious and clear about safeguarding responsibilities. They offer options rather than ultimatums, and they record the person’s position accurately.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff hold repeated short conversations “at their pace” to build trust, use plain language to explain concerns, and offer advocacy support. They strengthen day-to-day financial safety without removing control (e.g., supporting the person to review bank statements together, setting voluntary spending limits, and agreeing that cash is kept secure). Where risk indicators increase, they escalate in line with safeguarding thresholds while continuing to involve the person as far as possible.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Records show: what the person wanted, what options were offered, what was accepted/refused, and why decisions were made. Review notes show whether risks reduced and whether the person’s desired outcomes were still achievable. This is exactly what commissioners and inspectors look for: a defensible balance between rights and protection.

Governance and assurance: how leaders prove MSP is real

MSP becomes credible when leaders can evidence consistency. Strong providers typically build MSP into:

• Supervision templates: a standing prompt: “How did we involve the person in safeguarding decisions this month?”
• Case audits: sampling whether the person’s outcomes were recorded and reviewed, and whether restrictions are justified and proportionate.
• Learning reviews: checking where outcomes were not achieved and what changed as a result.
• Training impact checks: not just attendance, but whether staff can describe and apply MSP in scenarios.

In tenders, this translates into stronger assurance language because it shows MSP is part of your system, not dependent on individual style.

Tender-ready phrasing that demonstrates MSP (without sounding like theory)

Commissioners don’t just want to see your policy — they want to know how you use it. Examples of practical phrasing include:

• “We record the person’s desired safeguarding outcomes in their own words and review progress at agreed intervals.”
• “We use co-produced safety plans with clear escalation triggers, so staff respond consistently across shifts.”
• “Where the person chooses an unwise option, we document the discussion, offer alternatives, and put proportionate controls in place through positive risk-taking.”
• “We evidence impact through outcome reviews, repeat-concern trends, and audit sampling of MSP documentation quality.”

🧠 Final thought:
Every time you include a safeguarding answer in a tender, ask yourself: “Does this show that we see people, not just risks?” If not, rewrite it. The strongest safeguarding culture protects people and protects their rights — and that balance is what stands out to commissioners and to the people you support.