{{org_field_logo}}

{{org_field_name}}

Registration Number: {{org_field_registration_no}}

---

People Taking Positive Risks Policy

1. Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to support and enable the people we support at {{org_field_name}} to make informed choices about taking positive risks that enhance their independence, autonomy, and quality of life. This policy ensures that positive risk-taking is planned, agreed, recorded, reviewed and escalated in a person-centred and proportionate way, and complies with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (including Regulation 9 Person-centred care, Regulation 10 Dignity and respect, Regulation 11 Need for consent, Regulation 12 Safe care and treatment, Regulation 13 Safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment, Regulation 17 Good governance, Regulation 18 Staffing, and Regulation 20 Duty of candour), alongside the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and CQC guidance on managing risks while respecting people’s freedom.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all staff employed or contracted by {{org_field_name}}, including care workers, team leaders, and managers who support individuals to make daily decisions that may involve positive risk-taking. It also guides how we involve families, advocates, and professionals in the risk decision-making process.

3. Related Policies

• CH07 – Person-Centred Care Policy
• CH09 – Consent to Care Policy
• CH11 – Safe Care and Treatment Policy
• CH13 – Safeguarding Adults from Abuse and Improper Treatment Policy
• CH18 – Risk Management and Assessment Policy
• CH27 – Staff Supervision, Training, and Development Policy
• CH39 – Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Policy

4. Policy Statement and Responsibilities

Understanding Positive Risk-Taking

Positive risk-taking is the process of supporting individuals to make choices that involve risk but which may lead to positive outcomes, such as improved well-being, independence, or social inclusion. {{org_field_name}} acknowledges that risk is an inevitable and necessary part of life and that overly restrictive practices can harm dignity, development, and personal satisfaction. Our approach balances safety with empowerment, giving people the opportunity to grow and lead fulfilling lives.

Legal and Ethical Framework

All risk decisions are made within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Health and Social Care Act 2008, and associated CQC regulations. Key principles include:

• Presuming capacity unless proven otherwise
• Supporting individuals to make their own decisions
• Enabling unwise decisions where capacity is present
• Acting in the person’s best interest if they lack capacity
• Using the least restrictive option possible

Our risk approach promotes autonomy while ensuring compliance with safeguarding and duty of care obligations.

In addition to the Mental Capacity Act principles, staff must apply the regulatory requirements that underpin CQC assessments:

• Consent (Regulation 11): staff must obtain and document valid consent for agreed risk enablement plans where the person has capacity, and must not proceed without lawful authority.
• Safeguarding (Regulation 13): where risk-taking may indicate abuse, neglect, coercion, exploitation or avoidable harm, staff must escalate immediately via safeguarding procedures and consider referral to the local authority in line with the service safeguarding policy.
• Dignity, respect and least restrictive practice (Regulation 10): risk decisions must not impose blanket bans, overly restrictive controls, or unnecessary limits on choice; restrictions must be justified, proportionate, time-limited and reviewed.
• Governance and record keeping (Regulation 17): decisions, rationales, reviews, incidents, learning and actions must be documented and audited so the service can demonstrate safe, consistent practice.
• Staffing and competence (Regulation 18): risk enablement must only be implemented where staff competence, supervision and staffing levels are sufficient to do so safely.

Person-Centred Risk Assessment

Risk assessments must be collaborative, dynamic, and person-specific. Staff must:

• Identify the person’s goals, preferences, and values
• Assess potential benefits alongside risks
• Explore what matters most to the individual
• Identify ways to reduce or manage the risks without removing the opportunity
• Record the assessment and agreement in the care plan
• Review the plan regularly or after a change in circumstances

We use a strengths-based approach that focuses on what the individual can do with appropriate support.

Capacity, consent and best-interests decision-making (MCA/Regulation 11)

Before agreeing a positive risk plan, staff must confirm and record:

1. Whether the person has capacity to make the specific decision at the time it needs to be made. Capacity assessments must be decision-specific and time-specific.
2. If the person has capacity: staff must document the person’s decision, the information shared about risks/benefits, and the person’s consent to the agreed support plan (including any agreed contingency actions).
3. If the person lacks capacity: a best-interests decision must be completed and recorded, including the person’s wishes/feelings, consultation with relevant others (family/advocate/professionals), and the chosen option being the least restrictive available.
4. If restrictions may amount to a deprivation of liberty: staff must follow the service DoLS procedure and record the legal authorisation status and review dates.

Examples of Positive Risk

Examples of positive risk-taking may include:

• Choosing to cook meals independently despite physical challenges
• Going out unaccompanied in the community to promote independence
• Forming new relationships, including romantic or sexual relationships
• Managing one’s own medication with support
• Engaging in new activities that enhance physical or emotional well-being

Each situation is evaluated individually, with input from the person and relevant stakeholders.

Involving Families, Advocates, and Professionals

Where appropriate and with consent, families, legal representatives, advocates, and health professionals are involved in the risk decision-making process. In cases where the person lacks capacity, a formal best interest decision is made, ensuring that their wishes, feelings, and known preferences are central to the outcome.

Recording and Documentation

All positive risk decisions must be recorded in the person’s care plan and risk documentation, with a clear audit trail. Records must include:

• The goal/benefit the person is seeking and why it matters to them (what a “good outcome” looks like).
• The specific risk(s) and who may be affected.
• Capacity/consent status (capacity assessment outcome and consent recorded; or best-interests decision record and participants).
• Agreed support measures (equipment/adaptations, staffing support, prompts, environment changes, assistive tech, timing/route planning).
• Contingency plan and clear escalation triggers (e.g., missed check-ins, increased falls, medication errors, self-neglect indicators, safeguarding concerns).
• Review dates and frequency (minimum: at the next planned review; immediately after any incident/near miss/change in needs).
• Outcome monitoring: what will be measured/observed (wellbeing, independence, incidents, feedback) and who is responsible.
• Evidence of involvement: how the person (and where appropriate family/advocate) contributed and understood the plan.
• Learning and actions following incidents/near misses, including any amendments to the plan.

Staff Training and Competency

All staff receive training in:

• Risk assessment and management
• Person-centred planning
• Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decisions
• Safeguarding and balancing risk vs. protection

Training is refreshed annually and supervised through regular reviews, observations, and reflective practice.

Safeguarding and Risk

Taking positive risks is not the same as neglecting duty of care. If a decision poses a serious risk of harm to the person or others and cannot be mitigated, staff must follow safeguarding procedures and report the concern to the Safeguarding Lead. The goal is always to find ways to enable the person’s choices safely, not to deny them unnecessarily​.

Restrictions, restraint and least restrictive practice

Positive risk-taking must not be implemented through blanket restrictions. Where any restriction is proposed (including supervision requirements, locked doors, restricted access to items/areas, or limits on community access), staff must ensure the restriction is: lawful, necessary, proportionate, time-limited, and reviewed, and that it supports the person’s rights and outcomes.

Restraint must only ever be used as a last resort, for the shortest time, and in accordance with the service restrictive practice procedures. Any use of restraint must be recorded, reviewed, and learned from.

Incident Review and Learning

If a risk results in harm or an adverse outcome:

• Staff must follow incident reporting procedures under CH24
• A review is conducted to identify what went wrong, what was learned, and how future risks can be better supported
• The person is involved in the review wherever possible

The Registered Manager (or delegated senior) must assess whether Regulation 20 Duty of Candour applies. Where it does, the service will:

• Notify the person (and/or relevant person) as soon as reasonably practicable,
• Provide an apology,
• Give a truthful account of what is known at the time and what further investigation will take place,
• Provide this follow-up in writing where required, and
• Keep clear records of all duty of candour actions and communications.

This supports a culture of openness, learning, and continuous improvement.

5. Policy Review

This policy will be reviewed annually or sooner in response to regulatory changes, safeguarding incidents, or service developments. Updates will be communicated through staff training and team meetings to ensure consistent understanding and application across {{org_field_name}}. The policy will also be reviewed following any CQC guidance/assessment framework updates relevant to risk, restriction, consent, safeguarding, incident learning, or governance.

---

Responsible Person: {{org_field_registered_manager_first_name}} {{org_field_registered_manager_last_name}}
Reviewed on: {{last_update_date}}
Next Review Date: {{next_review_date}}
Copyright © {{current_year}} – {{org_field_name}}. All rights reserved.