Positive Risk-Taking in Adult Social Care: What Inspectors Look For
Share
Positive risk-taking is often discussed in adult social care, but it is frequently misunderstood. CQC does not expect providers to remove all risk, nor does it accept unmanaged risk. Inspectors assess whether providers can demonstrate balanced, proportionate decision-making that supports independence while protecting people from harm.
This article explains how CQC evaluates positive risk-taking in practice, and how providers should evidence it in line with person-centred support and wider governance and leadership expectations.
What Positive Risk-Taking Means to CQC
Positive risk-taking is not informal decision-making or individual staff judgement without oversight. CQC expects it to be structured, intentional and reviewed.
Inspectors look for evidence that:
People are supported to make choices that may involve risk, those risks are understood and mitigated where possible, and decisions are made collaboratively with the person, their representatives and relevant professionals.
Documenting Decisions Clearly and Defensibly
One of the most common inspection weaknesses is poorly documented risk decisions. Verbal agreements or undocumented flexibility are difficult to defend.
Strong providers document:
The nature of the risk, why supporting the choice is important, what steps are in place to reduce harm, and how the decision will be reviewed. This creates a clear audit trail that inspectors can follow.
Staff Confidence and Consistency
CQC frequently speaks directly to staff about how they manage risk. Inconsistent answers often indicate weak systems rather than individual failure.
Providers should evidence how staff are trained and supported to understand positive risk-taking, including how supervision and team discussions reinforce consistent approaches.
Staff should be able to explain not just what they do, but why they do it.
Positive Risk-Taking and Restrictive Practice
Inspectors pay particular attention to the relationship between positive risk-taking and restrictive practices.
Providers must demonstrate that restrictions are a last resort, used proportionately and reviewed regularly. Where restrictions are in place, CQC expects clear evidence that alternatives were considered and that the least restrictive option was chosen.
Governance Oversight of Risk Decisions
Positive risk-taking does not remove the need for governance. Senior leaders are expected to have oversight of high-risk decisions, particularly where there is potential for serious harm.
This may include reviewing complex cases, monitoring trends in incidents linked to risk decisions, and ensuring learning is shared across teams.
Using Positive Risk-Taking as Inspection Evidence
When evidenced well, positive risk-taking is a powerful source of inspection assurance. It demonstrates person-centred care, professional judgement and effective leadership.
Providers that can clearly articulate how risk decisions are made, supported and reviewed often perform strongly across multiple Quality Statements, particularly those linked to responsiveness and leadership.
💼 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
📘 Monthly Bid Support Retainers
Want predictable, specialist bid support as Procurement Act 2023 and MAT scoring bed in? My Monthly Bid Support Retainers give NHS and social care providers flexible access to live tender support, opportunity triage, bid library updates and renewal planning — at a discounted day rate.
🔍 Explore Monthly Bid Support Retainers →