Safeguarding Investigations in Adult Social Care: Purpose, Thresholds and Proportionate Responses
Safeguarding investigations are a core part of adult social care, yet they are frequently misunderstood. Too often, they are treated as punitive exercises or default responses to any concern, rather than structured processes designed to understand harm, reduce risk and improve practice. Clear understanding of purpose, thresholds and proportionality is essential for providers, commissioners and safeguarding partners.
This article sits within the wider Safeguarding Investigations, Outcomes & Learning knowledge base and links closely to how services recognise, record and respond to different types of abuse in day-to-day practice.
The purpose of safeguarding investigations
The primary purpose of a safeguarding investigation is to establish what has happened, assess ongoing risk, and identify actions needed to keep the person safe. Investigations are not designed to apportion blame, but to ensure proportionate protection, accountability and learning.
At their best, investigations provide:
- Clarity about harm or risk of harm
- Assurance that immediate safety measures are effective
- Evidence-based decisions about next steps
- Learning to reduce the likelihood of recurrence
When does a safeguarding investigation meet threshold?
Not all concerns require a formal safeguarding investigation. Thresholds are applied to determine whether a concern meets the criteria for a Section 42 enquiry or alternative response.
Threshold decisions typically consider:
- The nature and seriousness of the alleged harm
- The adult’s care and support needs
- The person’s ability to protect themselves
- Whether abuse or neglect is suspected or substantiated
Clear threshold application helps avoid over-investigation, while ensuring that genuine safeguarding concerns are escalated appropriately.
Operational example: medication errors in supported living
In a supported living service, repeated medication omissions were identified during internal audits. While no immediate harm had occurred, patterns indicated systemic risk.
The provider responded by raising a safeguarding concern, triggering a proportionate investigation. Immediate actions included medication competency checks, revised MAR audits and enhanced supervision. The investigation concluded that neglect had occurred due to training gaps, leading to a clear improvement plan.
Effectiveness was evidenced through improved audit scores, reduced incidents and positive feedback from commissioners.
Proportionate responses and safeguarding principles
Proportionality is central to effective safeguarding. Investigations should be scaled to the level of risk, avoiding unnecessary intrusion while ensuring safety.
Proportionate responses include:
- Early resolution and practice improvement where risk is low
- Multi-agency enquiries where risk is complex or ongoing
- Escalation to enforcement or regulatory bodies where required
This balance supports safeguarding without undermining trust or autonomy.
Operational example: financial abuse concern in domiciliary care
A domiciliary care provider received an allegation that a care worker had pressured a person to withdraw cash. Immediate protective measures were implemented, including staff suspension and financial safeguards.
A multi-agency investigation involving the local authority and police was initiated. The investigation substantiated financial abuse, leading to disciplinary action, referral to DBS and service-wide training enhancements.
Outcomes were evidenced through revised financial safeguarding protocols and commissioner assurance reviews.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate clear safeguarding thresholds, timely escalation and proportionate investigation processes. Evidence of learning and service improvement following investigations is critical during contract monitoring.
Regulator expectation
CQC expectation: Inspectors expect providers to recognise safeguarding concerns promptly, work openly with safeguarding partners and demonstrate that investigations lead to improved safety, governance and practice.
Operational example: peer-on-peer abuse in residential care
In a residential setting, repeated peer-on-peer incidents were reported. A safeguarding investigation identified environmental triggers and staffing patterns as contributory factors.
Actions included environmental adjustments, revised staffing rotas and PBS-informed support plans. Outcomes were evidenced through reduced incidents and improved quality-of-life measures.
Embedding learning from investigations
Safeguarding investigations must not end with conclusions alone. Learning should feed into supervision, training, audits and governance oversight to ensure sustained improvement.