Safeguarding and Positive Risk-Taking: Avoiding Over-Restriction in Older People’s Care
Share
Safeguarding concerns often drive the most restrictive practices in older people’s services. Fear of abuse, neglect or regulatory action can lead to blanket controls that limit freedom and choice. However, safeguarding is not about eliminating all risk; it is about protecting people from avoidable harm while respecting their rights to make informed decisions.
This article builds on positive risk-taking and person-centred planning to show how safeguarding and autonomy can be aligned.
When safeguarding becomes over-restrictive
Over-restriction often arises when services respond to potential risks with universal rules rather than individual assessment. This can include limiting contact, restricting movement or removing decision-making authority without clear evidence of necessity.
Such approaches may inadvertently breach human rights principles and create dependency rather than protection.
Operational example 1: Managing financial safeguarding concerns
Context: An older person wished to manage their own finances following concerns raised by relatives.
Support approach: Capacity was assessed and risks discussed openly with the individual.
Day-to-day delivery: Support included budgeting tools and periodic reviews rather than full control removal.
Evidence of effectiveness: No financial losses occurred and independence was maintained.
Operational example 2: Supporting community access with safeguarding oversight
Context: Concerns were raised about an individual being exploited while visiting local shops.
Support approach: Risks were mapped and safety strategies agreed collaboratively.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff supported initial visits and reviewed experiences during keywork sessions.
Evidence of effectiveness: Safeguarding alerts reduced and confidence increased.
Operational example 3: Managing family-driven restriction requests
Context: Family members requested restrictions on visits due to perceived vulnerability.
Support approach: The service facilitated best interest discussions and safeguarding consultation.
Day-to-day delivery: Decisions were documented, reviewed and communicated transparently.
Evidence of effectiveness: Complaints were avoided and relationships improved.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect safeguarding responses to be proportionate, evidence-based and aligned with the Care Act’s emphasis on wellbeing and choice.
Regulator expectation (CQC)
CQC expects providers to demonstrate that safeguarding actions are the least restrictive option and regularly reviewed in partnership with the person.
Strengthening safeguarding governance
Strong services embed safeguarding oversight through audits, supervision and multi-agency working. Positive risk-taking is recognised as a safeguarding strength, not a weakness.
💼 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