Restrictive Practices and the “Least Restrictive” Approach to Digital Safeguarding
Digital safeguarding can quickly become restrictive if providers default to device removal, blanket Wi-Fi bans or permanent app blocking. Within Digital Safeguarding, Online Risk & Technology-Enabled Harm, the operational challenge is to protect people from harm while maintaining rights, choice and everyday independence. That balance must be explicit in Digital Care Planning, so staff understand what is restricted, why it is restricted, and exactly how and when restrictions reduce.
This article sets out a least restrictive, inspection-ready approach to technology controls, including governance, day-to-day delivery detail and evidence of effectiveness.
Why “digital restriction” becomes a safeguarding risk in itself
Removing access to phones, tablets or online accounts can reduce immediate risk, but it can also create harm: isolation, loss of social connection, reduced access to services, and an increased power imbalance between staff and the person. Where restriction is not clearly justified, time-limited and review-led, it can amount to an unnecessary deprivation of liberty in practice, even if not framed that way by staff.
Providers need a clear internal standard: restrictions must be proportionate, documented, reviewed and stepped down as soon as safe.
What “least restrictive” looks like in digital safeguarding
Least restrictive practice means starting with the smallest effective control and scaling only if risk persists. In digital safeguarding, this often means choosing targeted controls over broad bans, for example:
- Blocking a specific contact rather than removing a device
- Introducing spending alerts rather than removing bank access
- Setting time-of-day safeguards rather than permanent limits
- Supporting safer platforms rather than banning all social media
The plan should describe how restrictions will reduce over time, and what evidence is required for step-down.
Operational example 1: Blanket device removal replaced with targeted safeguards
Context: A supported living tenant experienced online harassment and staff removed their smartphone “until it settled,” leading to distress, withdrawal and complaints.
Support approach: The provider reset the approach to least restrictive practice, focusing on targeted digital safety measures and rebuilding trust.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff supported the person to block and report accounts, changed privacy settings, enabled two-factor authentication and set up a simple “safe contact list” for periods of high anxiety. Instead of removing the phone, the team agreed a short, structured daily check-in for one week to review messages together (with the person leading the process). Staff were coached in supervision to avoid “punitive” language and to record decisions consistently.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Incident frequency reduced, the person re-engaged with routines, and weekly reviews showed safeguards could be reduced (check-ins moved from daily to twice weekly, then stopped). The record demonstrated a clear step-down pathway.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect providers to evidence proportionality and review when restrictions are used, including a clear rationale, time limits, and demonstrable efforts to use less restrictive alternatives.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
Inspectors expect restrictions to be justified, person-centred and reviewed, with clear evidence that the person’s rights, consent, and best-interest considerations (where relevant) are understood and documented.
Embedding restrictions within governance and assurance
Digital restrictions should never rely solely on individual staff judgement. Providers benefit from a simple governance framework that is easy to evidence:
- Trigger criteria: what risk indicators justify introducing controls
- Authorisation: who approves (e.g., Registered Manager / safeguarding lead)
- Time limits: default review timeframes (e.g., 72 hours, 7 days, 28 days)
- Step-down rules: what evidence is needed to reduce controls
- Audit trail: where decisions are recorded and how consistency is checked
This reduces drift into informal, prolonged restrictions.
Operational example 2: Financial app controls during fluctuating vulnerability
Context: A person receiving domiciliary care was repeatedly pressured online to send small payments. Staff were concerned and suggested removing phone access entirely.
Support approach: The provider used financial safeguarding measures that protected without removing digital independence.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The care plan introduced spending alerts, a daily “pause and check” prompt before transfers, and a trusted-contact arrangement with the person’s agreement. Staff supported the person to practise refusal scripts and to recognise manipulative patterns. During higher-risk periods (identified in the plan), staff increased check-ins and reviewed banking notifications with the person, then stepped down as confidence improved.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Transfers to unknown contacts stopped, the person retained access to legitimate online services, and supervision records showed the team followed the step-down rules. The provider could evidence a measured safeguarding response rather than blanket restriction.
Restrictive practice risk in day-to-day delivery
Restrictions often expand unintentionally through routine: “staff hold the phone,” “Wi-Fi is off after 6pm,” or “apps are deleted” without review. Providers should ensure staff understand that any limitation on access is a safeguarding intervention that needs a rationale and review date.
Practical steps include:
- Including “digital restrictions” as a standing supervision topic
- Auditing care notes for informal restrictions (language cues help)
- Ensuring the person’s voice is recorded, including disagreement
- Setting reminders for review points (so restrictions cannot drift)
Operational example 3: Time-limited platform restriction with planned reintroduction
Context: A person in extra care housing used a messaging platform to contact strangers late at night when feeling low, leading to exploitation attempts and safeguarding concerns.
Support approach: The provider applied a time-limited restriction focused only on high-risk hours, alongside emotional support.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The plan introduced night-time app limits on the specific platform, agreed in a best-interest meeting during a period of reduced capacity, with a clear review date. Staff increased evening wellbeing contact, offered alternative safe social connection, and practised safer online routines during daytime hours. The plan included a staged reintroduction: re-enable access for a short window, review incidents, then expand if stable.
How effectiveness is evidenced: Night-time incidents stopped, the person’s sleep improved, and review minutes showed the restriction reduced over time. The provider could evidence that restriction was used as a temporary safety measure with a defined pathway back to autonomy.
What good looks like
Inspection-ready digital safeguarding makes restrictive practice visible, planned and time-limited. Providers that adopt least restrictive principles can demonstrate that safety improvements come from targeted controls, consistent staff practice, and clear evidence of step-down—rather than blanket removal of digital life.