Restrictive Practice Reduction Through Reviewing Device Restrictions in PBS

May 15, 2026

Positive Behaviour Support requires providers to review restrictions that affect access to phones, tablets, communication devices, television, music systems, gaming, internet use and other everyday technology. The Positive Behaviour Support hub for rights, behaviour and restrictive practice reduction supports services to connect safety with autonomy, dignity and proactive support.

In specialist services, restrictive practice review and reduction should include staff-controlled phones, limited tablet access, removed chargers, restricted internet routines, blocked entertainment choices and technology rules that are broader than current risk requires.

This reflects PBS principles around choice, communication and person-led support, because technology can support connection, regulation, learning and independence. Strong services review device restrictions carefully rather than treating them as simple behaviour management.

Concept Explained Clearly

Device restrictions occur when a person’s access to technology is limited, removed or controlled without clear, proportionate and reviewed justification. This may include staff keeping phones in an office, limiting tablet use to set times, removing chargers, blocking music access, restricting video calls or preventing gaming because previous use became difficult.

Some restrictions may be necessary where there are safeguarding, financial, online safety, sleep, exploitation, aggression, property damage or health concerns. PBS does not ignore those risks. It asks whether the restriction is targeted, evidence-based and balanced against the person’s rights, communication needs and quality of life.

The strongest services do not ask only whether a device creates risk. They ask what the device provides, what risk is actually present, and what safer access would look like.

Why It Matters in Real Services

Technology is often part of ordinary life. It may help a person speak to family, manage anxiety, listen to music, follow routines, communicate choices, access hobbies or understand what is happening next.

When access is removed or tightly controlled, distress may increase. A person may repeatedly ask for the device, become anxious about losing it, hide it, refuse handover or escalate when staff remove it suddenly. Commissioners and CQC will expect providers to evidence that device restrictions are justified, reviewed and reduced where safer support can be introduced.

What Good Looks Like

Strong services separate the device from the risk. A phone may be safe for music and calls but require support around spending. A tablet may support communication but need agreed charging, storage and online safety arrangements.

Providers should be able to evidence device access plans, PBS plan updates, risk assessments, online safety guidance, communication needs, staff supervision and outcome data. This creates a clear line of sight from risk to support action and from support action to increased safe access.

Operational Example 1: Restoring Access to a Communication Tablet

Step 1 – Context: A person’s tablet was kept by staff because it had previously been thrown during distress. Staff only provided it during planned communication sessions.

Step 2 – Support approach: Review showed the tablet was most useful before distress escalated, especially when the person wanted to request a break or ask about activities.

Step 3 – Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff introduced a protective case, a charging dock in the person’s room, visual safe-use guidance and early support when frustration signs appeared.

Step 4 – Restriction reduction: The tablet moved from staff-controlled access to daily available access, with staff supporting safe use rather than removing the device by default.

Step 5 – How effectiveness was evidenced: The person used the tablet to request breaks, incidents reduced during activity changes and staff recorded fewer guessed interpretations. The provider evidenced that communication access reduced restrictive staff responses.

Deepening the Approach

Device restrictions need careful behavioural analysis. Services may focus on the moment a device is damaged or refused for handover, but the real issue may be uncertainty, boredom, loss of control, online anxiety, tiredness or abrupt interruption.

Good evidence prevents over-restriction. Using ABC data to understand behaviour within PBS can help teams identify whether incidents are linked to staff taking devices away, unclear time limits, online content, sensory overload, charging issues or lack of alternative regulation.

Operational Example 2: Reviewing Phone Restrictions Around Family Contact

Step 1 – Context: A supported living service limited one person’s phone access after repeated distressed calls to a family member late at night.

Step 2 – Support approach: Review found that the person became anxious when they did not know when family contact would happen. Restricting the phone increased repeated checking.

Step 3 – Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff created a family contact plan, agreed call times, introduced a reassurance card and supported the person to record non-urgent messages during the evening.

Step 4 – Restriction reduction: Phone access changed from staff-held control to person-held access with agreed call support and a clear night-time plan.

Step 5 – How effectiveness was evidenced: Distressed late calls reduced, family contact became calmer and the person checked the reassurance card independently. The provider evidenced that predictability reduced the need for phone restriction.

Systems, Workforce and Consistency

Device restriction reduction requires clear staff guidance. If one staff member removes a device after difficulty and another supports problem-solving, the person may experience technology access as unpredictable and unfair.

Supervision should review whether staff understand the purpose of the device, the actual risks and the agreed reduction plan. Handovers should record access outcomes, triggers, safe-use progress and any concerns requiring review. Strong services demonstrate that device access is governed through PBS planning, not managed through informal staff discretion.

Operational Example 3: Reducing Gaming Time Restrictions

Step 1 – Context: A person could only use a games console for thirty minutes a day because staff believed longer use caused agitation and refusal of other activities.

Step 2 – Support approach: Review showed agitation occurred when gaming stopped abruptly or when staff gave repeated verbal warnings during play.

Step 3 – Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff introduced a visual timer, a save-point routine, planned gaming periods after key daily tasks and a preferred transition activity afterward.

Step 4 – Restriction reduction: The fixed thirty-minute rule was replaced with structured access based on timing, transition support and agreed daily responsibilities.

Step 5 – How effectiveness was evidenced: Ending gaming became calmer, participation in other routines improved and conflict around time limits reduced. The provider evidenced that transition support was less restrictive than a blanket time limit.

Governance and Evidence

Governance should show how device restrictions are identified, authorised, reviewed and reduced. Providers should be able to evidence PBS plan updates, restriction register entries where relevant, risk assessments, safeguarding guidance, incident analysis, staff supervision, family input where appropriate and quality-of-life outcomes.

Strong governance creates a clear line of sight from device-related behaviour to risk analysis, from risk analysis to support adjustment, and from support adjustment to outcome. Providers should be able to evidence that restrictions are targeted to current risk and do not unnecessarily remove communication, connection or regulation.

Commissioner and CQC Expectations

Commissioners expect providers to support independence, communication and community connection while managing risk proportionately. They need assurance that device restrictions are not being used because technology feels difficult to supervise.

CQC will expect care to be person-centred, respectful, responsive and least restrictive. Inspectors may review whether people can communicate with others, access personal possessions, use technology safely and have restrictions reviewed. Strong services demonstrate that technology access is part of PBS governance and rights-based support.

Common Pitfalls

Removing devices after one incident without testing safer access.
Keeping communication technology in staff-controlled areas.
Using fixed time limits without analysing transition difficulty.
Restricting phones instead of supporting predictable contact plans.
Failing to separate online risk from ordinary device use.
Measuring success only by reduced conflict, not communication, autonomy and quality of life.

Conclusion

Restrictive practice reduction through reviewing device restrictions helps PBS services recognise that technology can support communication, comfort and independence. Device access should be managed safely, but not removed more broadly than risk requires.

Strong providers evidence why restrictions exist, how safer access is tested and how outcomes improve. This gives commissioners and CQC confidence that PBS is reducing unnecessary control while supporting connection, dignity and everyday autonomy.