Positive Risk-Taking in Social Care — A Complete Guide for Providers
🌱 Positive Risk-Taking in Social Care — A Complete Guide
How to empower independence, balance safety, and demonstrate confident risk enablement in tenders and CQC inspections.
Commissioners aren’t impressed by buzzwords. They want clear evidence that your approach to risk is confident, proportionate, and person-led. For providers bidding in learning disability tenders, domiciliary care submissions, or home care bids, showing how you enable positive risk-taking can mean the difference between an average score and a winning response.
This isn’t just about the forms you fill in — it’s about how your team thinks about risk, how you evidence it, and how you balance protection with independence.
🔎 What Is Positive Risk-Taking?
Positive risk-taking is the process of supporting people to make choices that involve some level of risk, but which also bring meaningful benefits. It is not about being reckless — it’s about weighing up risks and opportunities, planning support around them, and enabling people to live the lives they want.
In practice, this means:
- Balancing safety with independence — recognising that eliminating all risk also eliminates opportunity.
- Co-production — involving the person, their family, and professionals in decisions about risk.
- Documenting thought processes — showing commissioners and CQC how you reached a balanced decision.
- Learning from incidents — using setbacks as a chance to adapt support rather than restrict it.
Commissioners increasingly reward providers who demonstrate risk enablement rather than risk avoidance, because it aligns with person-centred practice and outcomes-focused commissioning.
📋 What Commissioners Look For
When reviewing bids or inspecting services, commissioners and CQC expect to see:
- ✅ Person-centred risk assessments that evolve over time, not static documents filed away.
- ✅ Supervision records where staff discuss enabling choice and risk with managers.
- ✅ Decision logs showing the involvement of the person and family/advocates.
- ✅ Incident reviews that lead to learning and plan adjustments rather than restrictions.
For example, if a provider simply writes “we ensure safety at all times” without showing how they balance safety with autonomy, they risk scoring poorly. By contrast, a provider that explains how they co-produced a travel plan for someone with learning disabilities, trialled it, adapted it, and tracked outcomes demonstrates maturity, accountability, and care quality.
🧑🤝🧑 Examples in Practice
Learning Disability Context
A man with learning disabilities wants to learn to cook independently. The risks include burns, cuts, or food hygiene concerns. A positive risk-taking approach would involve:
- Completing a graded risk assessment — identifying which tasks he can do safely and where staff should supervise.
- Trialling the task with graduated support — e.g., supervised knife use, step-by-step guidance.
- Recording progress and reviewing weekly, adjusting support as confidence grows.
- Discussing outcomes in supervision to ensure staff support is enabling rather than restrictive.
Evidence for tenders: “We co-produced a step-by-step cooking plan with the person and occupational therapist. Initially, staff modelled tasks, then stepped back. After 12 weeks, he was preparing simple meals safely with minimal prompts.”
Domiciliary Care Context
An older woman living at home wants to continue walking to the local shop. Her family worry about falls. A risk-averse approach would be to stop her going out; a positive risk-taking approach might be:
- Completing a falls risk assessment with her input.
- Agreeing a trial with staff walking alongside for two weeks.
- Reviewing incidents and updating the plan based on her experience and preferences.
- Documenting the person’s choice to continue, with adaptations (walking stick, community alarm).
Evidence for tenders: “The person’s voice was central: she wanted independence, and the plan enabled her to continue meaningful routines safely. The family’s concerns were acknowledged, and adaptations reduced risks without removing choice.”
🎯 Scoring Higher in Tenders
To stand out in tenders, go beyond generic statements. Commissioners want specific examples that show clear decision-making, not vague commitments.
Compare these two responses:
- Poor response: “We always put safety first and ensure people are not exposed to unnecessary risks.”
- High-scoring response: “We supported A to trial independent travel with their occupational therapist. Risks were reviewed weekly, and the person was supported to adapt strategies following a minor incident. The plan was co-produced, reviewed, and adjusted — enabling independence while maintaining safety.”
The difference? One shows process, evidence, and outcomes; the other is just words.
📖 Embedding Positive Risk-Taking in Your Service
Commissioners and regulators are looking for consistency — not one-off good stories. To embed positive risk-taking:
- Policy and training — ensure staff understand the principles of risk enablement.
- Supervision focus — use reflective supervision to discuss real cases and how risk is managed.
- Decision-making logs — record not just the final decision but the discussion process.
- Incident learning — shift from “what went wrong” to “what did we learn and how can we adapt?”
📊 Evidencing Risk Enablement for CQC
CQC inspectors look for evidence that risk-taking is proportionate, person-centred, and documented. Evidence sources include:
- Risk assessments showing updates over time, not static snapshots.
- Care plans with person’s voice clearly included.
- Incident reports with learning points and updated plans.
- Supervision notes where managers discuss balancing risk and choice.
For example, inspectors may ask: “Can you show me how you supported someone to try something new safely?” A provider with strong documentation can quickly produce assessments, review notes, and outcomes that demonstrate a thoughtful, empowering approach.
📌 Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Providers often lose tender marks or receive inspection challenges when they:
- Default to saying “no” rather than enabling.
- Fail to document decision-making, leaving inspectors guessing.
- Use generic risk assessments that aren’t person-specific.
- Treat incidents as reasons to restrict independence instead of opportunities to learn.
By contrast, providers who document their reasoning and demonstrate co-production are consistently rated more positively.
Final Thought: Risk enablement is now a commissioning priority. Services that over-protect people are no longer seen as the safest — they are seen as outdated. Show you’re part of the shift: empower independence, document your reasoning, and provide evidence that demonstrates confidence, compassion, and accountability.
💼 Rapid Support Products (fast turnaround options)
- ⚡ 48-Hour Tender Triage
- 🆘 Bid Rescue Session – 60 minutes
- ✍️ Score Booster – Tender Answer Rewrite
- 🧩 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
🔁 Prefer Flexible Monthly Support?
If you regularly handle tenders, frameworks or call-offs, a Monthly Bid Support Retainer may be a better fit.
- Guaranteed hours each month (1, 2, 4 or 8 days)
- Discounted day rates vs ad-hoc consultancy
- Use time flexibly across bids, triage, library updates, renewals
- One-month rollover (fair-use rules applied)
- Cancel anytime before next billing date
🚀 Ready to Win Your Next Bid?
Chat on WhatsApp or email Mike.Harrison@impact-guru.co.uk
Updated for Procurement Act 2023 • CQC-aligned • BASE-aligned (where relevant)