Using Digital Care Planning to Manage DoLS and Restrictive Practice
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and restrictive practices must be applied lawfully, proportionately and with clear oversight. Poor documentation or lack of review can lead to unlawful restriction and serious regulatory consequences. Using digital care planning to record and monitor restrictive practice and DoLS ensures structured and accountable management.
With assistive systems that track restrictions, reviews and alerts, providers can ensure restrictions are justified and monitored. The digital transformation approach to governance and lawful care delivery highlights how structured systems support compliance.
Why this matters
Restrictions on liberty must be lawful and regularly reviewed. Failure to do so can result in safeguarding concerns and regulatory action.
Digital systems provide visibility and structure, ensuring that restrictions are necessary, proportionate and documented.
A practical framework for managing DoLS and restrictive practice
Effective management includes recording restrictions, linking to authorisations, reviewing necessity and evidencing outcomes.
Managers must demonstrate that restrictions are applied lawfully and reviewed consistently.
Operational Example 1: Recording Restrictive Practices Clearly
Step 1: The registered manager records any restrictive practice within the digital care plan, including type, reason and legal basis.
Step 2: The system structures the record to include links to DoLS authorisation and supporting documentation.
Step 3: The team leader reviews the record and documents whether the restriction is clearly justified and understood.
Step 4: Staff follow guidance and record implementation within daily care records.
Step 5: The system logs each use of the restriction and links it to the individual’s care history.
What can go wrong is unclear or undocumented restrictions. Early warning signs include inconsistent use or missing rationale. Escalation involves management review. Consistency is maintained through structured recording.
Governance: Restriction records, legal basis and usage logs are reviewed weekly. Action is triggered by unclear justification or inconsistent practice.
Evidence & Outcomes: The baseline issue was poor documentation of restrictions. Measurable improvement included clearer records and improved compliance. Evidence sources include care records, audits, feedback and staff practice.
Operational Example 2: Monitoring Use and Frequency of Restrictions
Step 1: The system tracks each instance of restrictive practice and records frequency within the monitoring dashboard.
Step 2: The team leader reviews data and records patterns, including increases or unusual use.
Step 3: The registered manager reviews patterns and records decisions regarding reduction or review.
Step 4: Staff implement alternative approaches where possible and record outcomes within care records.
Step 5: The system tracks whether use of restrictions reduces over time.
What can go wrong is overuse or normalisation of restriction. Early warning signs include increasing frequency or staff reliance. Escalation involves management review and alternative planning. Consistency is maintained through monitoring.
Governance: Usage data, trend analysis and action plans are reviewed monthly. Action is triggered by increased frequency or lack of reduction.
Evidence & Outcomes: The baseline issue was unmonitored use of restrictions. Measurable improvement included reduced use and improved practice. Evidence sources include care records, audits, feedback and staff practice.
Operational Example 3: Reviewing Legal Compliance and Authorisations
Step 1: The system flags DoLS authorisations and records expiry dates within the governance dashboard.
Step 2: The team leader reviews upcoming expiries and records actions required for renewal.
Step 3: The registered manager completes renewal processes and records submissions within the system.
Step 4: Staff update care plans and record any changes in restrictions or conditions.
Step 5: The system records updated authorisation status and links it to care records.
What can go wrong is expired or missing authorisation. Early warning signs include approaching deadlines or missing records. Escalation involves urgent management action. Consistency is maintained through automated alerts.
Governance: Authorisation records, expiry tracking and renewal actions are reviewed monthly. Action is triggered by missed deadlines or incomplete records.
Evidence & Outcomes: The baseline issue was missed renewals. Measurable improvement included improved compliance and reduced risk. Evidence sources include care records, audits, feedback and staff practice.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect providers to manage restrictive practice lawfully and minimise its use.
They also expect evidence of monitoring, review and reduction.
Regulator / Inspector expectation
CQC inspectors expect providers to ensure restrictions are lawful, proportionate and in the person’s best interests.
Inspectors may review records, authorisations and audits to confirm compliance.
Conclusion
Digital care planning strengthens management of DoLS and restrictive practice by ensuring clear recording, monitoring and review.
Governance systems ensure that restrictions are justified and regularly assessed.
Outcomes are evidenced through improved compliance, reduced use of restriction and clear audit trails.
Consistency is maintained through structured workflows, alerts and regular review. When implemented effectively, digital systems support lawful, safe and inspection-ready care delivery.