Strengths-Based Practice and Positive Risk-Taking in Adult Social Care
Share
Strengths-based practice cannot exist without positive risk-taking. Where services default to risk avoidance, independence stalls and dependency grows. Commissioners and regulators increasingly expect providers to demonstrate how positive risk-taking is embedded within strengths-based delivery, particularly in areas such as daily living, community access and decision-making. This article builds on wider strengths-based approaches and aligns closely with expectations around risk management and positive risk-taking.
Why positive risk-taking is central to strengths-based delivery
Positive risk-taking involves enabling individuals to make informed choices, even where there is some risk, provided risks are understood, proportionate and reviewed. In strengths-based models, risk is not eliminated; it is managed in a way that supports growth, autonomy and confidence.
Providers that avoid positive risk-taking often struggle to evidence progression or outcomes.
Operational example: independent travel
A person supported in a supported living service may wish to travel independently to a local shop. A strengths-based, risk-enabling approach involves:
• assessing existing skills and confidence
• identifying environmental risks and mitigations
• agreeing gradual steps toward independence
Staff record progress, incidents and learning, and adjust controls as confidence improves.
Operational example: managing health risks
In services supporting people with long-term health conditions, strengths-based risk management may include:
• supporting individuals to self-administer medication with checks
• enabling choice around diet and activity
• balancing clinical advice with personal preference
Commissioners expect providers to evidence shared decision-making rather than blanket restrictions.
Operational example: social relationships
Strengths-based practice recognises the importance of relationships, even where risks exist. For example:
• supporting individuals to form relationships with agreed boundaries
• providing education rather than prohibition
• reviewing risks as circumstances change
Inspectors frequently examine whether safeguarding responses are proportionate and person-led.
Safeguarding within strengths-based risk-taking
Positive risk-taking does not replace safeguarding. Effective providers embed:
• clear escalation thresholds
• regular review of risk decisions
• multidisciplinary input where appropriate
This reassures commissioners that autonomy is supported safely.
Commissioner expectations
Commissioners expect providers to demonstrate:
• documented risk enablement decisions
• involvement of individuals and advocates
• alignment with Care Act wellbeing principles
Risk avoidance without justification is increasingly challenged during reviews.
Regulatory scrutiny
CQC inspectors often explore:
• whether staff feel empowered to support positive risk
• how incidents are reviewed for learning
• whether restrictions are time-limited and reviewed
Strengths-based services can evidence this clearly.
Outcomes and impact
When positive risk-taking is embedded within strengths-based delivery, services demonstrate increased independence, improved confidence and better long-term outcomes. These outcomes align strongly with commissioning priorities and regulatory expectations.
💼 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