Managing Device Use Agreements and Digital Boundaries in Supported Living

In supported living, smartphones, tablets, smart TVs and gaming platforms are not “extras” — they shape social contact, money management, privacy, and risk exposure. The challenge for providers is not whether people should use technology, but how services set clear, person-centred boundaries that protect people without drifting into blanket restrictions. This is where digital governance meets day-to-day practice, and where records need to stand up to scrutiny from both commissioners and inspectors.

For wider context and related operational guidance, see the Digital Safeguarding & Risk resources and the Digital Care Planning guidance.

Why “device boundaries” are a safeguarding and quality issue

Device boundaries are not about controlling behaviour; they are about making risk visible, agreed and reviewable. Where boundaries are absent or inconsistently applied, services tend to fall into one of two patterns:

  • Drift into unmanaged risk (e.g., unknown contacts, scams, coercion, sleep disruption, unsafe content, location sharing).
  • Drift into unmanaged restriction (e.g., informal bans, ad-hoc confiscation, staff “rules” that aren’t recorded or reviewed).

Both patterns create safeguarding exposure. Unmanaged risk can result in harm; unmanaged restriction can breach rights and undermine trust. In either case, the service struggles to evidence proportionality, least restrictive practice, and learning.

What a “device use agreement” should cover in practice

A device use agreement is a practical working document that sits alongside the support plan. It should be written in plain English and reflect what staff actually do on shift. A robust agreement typically includes:

  • Purpose and outcomes (what the person uses devices for, and what “good” looks like for them).
  • Known risks (scams, exploitation, bullying, harmful content, unsafe sharing, sleep impact, conflict triggers).
  • Practical boundaries (what staff will do, and what the person agrees to do — including how prompts and checks happen).
  • Escalation thresholds (what triggers a safeguarding response, a best-interests review, or specialist advice).
  • Data and privacy (how staff support without routinely accessing private messages or accounts, and when exceptions apply).
  • Review cycle (how often it is reviewed, how learning is captured, and how restrictions are stepped down).

The agreement is only meaningful if it is used consistently and updated when circumstances change. “Set and forget” paperwork is a common failure point in audits.

Commissioner expectation

Commissioner expectation: providers can evidence a consistent, auditable approach to digital risk that links assessment, support planning, incident response and outcomes. In practice, commissioners will expect you to show (1) that digital safeguarding is embedded in care planning and staff practice, and (2) that decisions — including restrictions — are documented, reviewed, and reduced where safe to do so.

Regulator / Inspector expectation

Regulator / Inspector expectation (e.g., CQC): people are supported to be safe while maintaining choice, control and dignity, and any restrictions are lawful, proportionate and the least restrictive option. Inspectors will look for evidence that staff understand the rationale for boundaries, that people are involved as far as possible, and that governance processes identify and respond to emerging digital risk.

Operational example 1: Safe money management where scam risk is high

Context: A person in supported living is receiving frequent messages from unknown numbers and social media accounts offering “investment tips”. They have previously transferred money and are anxious about being “left out” if they don’t respond quickly.

Support approach: The team co-produce a device use agreement with a clear financial-safety section, aligned to the person’s outcomes (independence with spending, reduced anxiety, fewer crisis incidents). The plan focuses on supporting decision-making rather than taking control of the phone.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

  • Staff agree a daily “check-in” prompt at a consistent time (e.g., after breakfast) to review any new money-related messages together.
  • A simple “pause rule” is agreed: no transfers or gift cards on the same day as first contact; any urgent request triggers a staff-supported verification step.
  • On shift, staff record what was discussed, the person’s stated reasoning, and what the person chose to do (including when they choose not to follow advice).
  • Where a message appears coercive or manipulative, staff follow an agreed escalation threshold (safeguarding lead notified the same day, plus discussion in the next team handover).

How effectiveness/change is evidenced: The service evidences reduced unplanned transfers, fewer distress calls, and improved confidence in spotting scam patterns. Governance reviews show whether prompts are being completed and whether staff are escalating appropriately.

Operational example 2: Managing contact risk without blanket phone bans

Context: A person has a pattern of late-night online arguments that escalate into self-neglect and refusal of medication the next day. Staff have previously responded by taking the phone “until they calm down”, which leads to conflict and allegations of unfairness.

Support approach: The service reframes the issue as a combination of emotional regulation, sleep hygiene, and online contact risk. A device boundary is agreed that aims to reduce harm while protecting dignity and rights.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

  • The agreement sets a supported evening routine: staff offer a planned activity and a wind-down slot; the person chooses from options, rather than being told to stop using the phone.
  • The plan introduces time-based prompts (e.g., staff check in at 22:00 and 23:00) focused on wellbeing: “How are you feeling? Are messages winding you up?”
  • If escalation signs appear (raised voice, pacing, repeated hostile messaging), staff use a structured de-escalation approach and offer a cool-down alternative (music, walk, hot drink, sensory support) before discussing the phone again.
  • Only if defined thresholds are met (risk of harm to self/others, significant distress, repeated inability to disengage) do staff consider a restrictive step — and this must be recorded as a time-limited measure with a review date.

How effectiveness/change is evidenced: Sleep and medication adherence improve; incident logs show fewer confrontations. The provider can evidence that restrictions are not routine, and that staff are using consistent thresholds rather than personal judgement.

Operational example 3: Balancing privacy with safeguarding in shared environments

Context: In a shared supported living setting, one person regularly records other residents and staff without consent, then posts clips online. This creates distress for others and increases risk of harassment.

Support approach: The service treats this as a rights-balancing issue: the person’s use of technology must be managed alongside other residents’ rights to privacy and safety. The response requires both individual planning and service-level governance.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

  • The plan sets a clear boundary: no filming in shared spaces without explicit consent, and no posting content involving others.
  • Staff use consistent language and a scripted prompt: “We can’t film others here. If you want to record something, let’s plan a private space.”
  • The service provides practical alternatives: a designated area where the person can record their own content, plus support to create “safe content” that doesn’t include other people.
  • Where filming persists, the service uses a stepped response: reminder → incident recording → formal review → safeguarding discussion if harassment or intimidation risks arise.

How effectiveness/change is evidenced: Reduced complaints and fewer incidents of filming. The provider can evidence consistent staff responses, service-level messaging, and reviews that consider proportionality and least restrictive practice.

Governance: how to make boundaries reliable across a workforce

Device boundaries fail when they depend on one confident staff member. Strong providers build reliability through simple governance mechanisms:

  • Standard templates for device use agreements that still allow personalisation.
  • Handover prompts that include digital risk updates (new contacts, new apps, new incidents).
  • Monthly audits sampling records for evidence of thresholds, reviews, and step-down planning.
  • Safeguarding supervision that explores dilemmas (privacy vs safety, restriction vs autonomy) and documents decision-making.
  • Incident trend review for technology-enabled harm (scams, harassment, coercion, inappropriate contact, location-sharing incidents).

Restrictive practices: keeping decisions lawful and time-limited

When restrictions are considered (e.g., removing a device for a short period, limiting access to a specific app, restricting internet at night), the key is to avoid normalising restriction as “just what we do”. Services should be able to evidence:

  • Why the restriction is needed now (risk description, thresholds met, immediate safety rationale).
  • What alternatives were tried and why they were insufficient.
  • How the person was involved (and what communication support was used).
  • How the restriction will reduce (step-down plan, review dates, triggers for removal).
  • Who authorised it and what oversight occurred (manager sign-off, safeguarding lead review where appropriate).

This is the difference between a defensible, proportionate measure and an informal practice that will not withstand scrutiny.

What “good” looks like to commissioners and inspectors

Strong services can demonstrate that digital boundaries protect safety while enabling ordinary life. Evidence typically includes: clear agreements aligned to outcomes; consistent staff practice; records that show review and learning; and a governance trail that links front-line delivery to oversight. The aim is not perfection — it is visibility, proportionality and continuous improvement.

⬅️ Return to Knowledge Hub Index