Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) means adult safeguarding should be person-led and outcome-focused: it is done with the person, not to them. Staff ask the adult what they want to happen, shape the response around that, and record whether those outcomes were achieved. It is written into the statutory guidance to the Care Act 2014. What it does not mean is “do whatever the person says”. Staff still act when other people or children are at risk, a crime is involved, the person lacks capacity for the decision, or they are being coerced or controlled.
At a glance: Nexis CPD offers a £9 CPD-accredited online Safeguarding Adults (Advanced) Level 2 course — 100% online, with an instantly emailed, employer-verifiable certificate. Any three courses cost £18, and teams of 5 or more pay £6 a course place.
For the basics, including who counts as an adult at risk, the six safeguarding principles, the types of abuse and how section 42 enquiries work, see our guide to safeguarding adults. This guide follows the law in England. General information, not legal advice — if someone is in immediate danger call 999.
What does Making Safeguarding Personal mean?
The Care and Support Statutory Guidance defines it in chapter 14, at paragraph 14.15:
“Making safeguarding personal means it should be person-led and outcome-focused. It engages the person in a conversation about how best to respond to their safeguarding situation in a way that enhances involvement, choice and control as well as improving quality of life, wellbeing and safety.”
Paragraph 14.14 says people have “different preferences, histories, circumstances and life-styles, so it is unhelpful to prescribe a process that must be followed whenever a concern is raised”. Paragraph 14.207 calls MSP “a fundamental shift in social work practice”, with “a focus on the person not the process”.
In plain terms, safeguarding used to be judged mainly by whether the procedure was followed. MSP adds a second test: did the person get the outcome they wanted, or one they can live with, and do they feel safer? A tidy file is not a success if the person ended up feeling ignored or worse off.
MSP sits alongside the six safeguarding principles (empowerment, prevention, proportionality, protection, partnership and accountability), which are explained in our safeguarding adults guide. Empowerment and proportionality carry most of the weight here. The guidance, introducing the principles at paragraph 14.13, puts empowerment in the adult’s own voice: “I am asked what I want as the outcomes from the safeguarding process and these directly inform what happens.”
Where does Making Safeguarding Personal come from?
MSP started as a sector-led initiative in English councils before it became part of the statutory guidance. According to Local Government Association (LGA) reports, the main steps were:
- 2009: a literature review for the Improvement and Development Agency (now part of the LGA) found very little evidence about what helps people at risk make difficult decisions.
- 2010: the LGA published Making Safeguarding Personal – a tool kit of responses. The work has been supported since then by the LGA and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS).
- 2012 to 2013: test-bed councils asked people what outcomes they wanted. The LGA’s 2012 to 2013 report records that in one test-bed council, social workers were at first reluctant to ask people about outcomes because they felt it was too risky.
- April 2015: the Care Act 2014 safeguarding duties came into force, and chapter 14 of the statutory guidance endorsed the approach.
- June 2018: ADASS and the LGA endorsed the MSP Outcomes Framework, seven questions councils can use to measure whether practice is person-led.
- December 2019: an updated MSP toolkit handbook was published, covering advocacy, mental capacity, risk enablement and coercive control.
The toolkit handbook sums up the change as a move “from a process supported by conversations to a series of conversations supported by a process”.
What does Making Safeguarding Personal look like in practice?
Most of it is ordinary good communication, done at the moments when it is easiest to skip:
- Asking early. Paragraph 14.93 says an enquiry “will usually start with asking the adult their view and wishes which will often determine what next steps to take”.
- Asking about outcomes, not just facts. Useful questions include “What would you like to happen now?”, “What would make you feel safer?”, “What does a good result look like for you?” and “Is there anything you definitely do not want to happen?”
- Recording the answer in the person’s own words. Paragraph 14.103 says: “It is vital that the views of the adult are sought and recorded.” Its examples of outcomes include feeling safe at home, restricted or no contact with certain individuals, or pursuing the matter through the criminal justice system.
- Explaining the options honestly. Paragraph 14.105 expects the person to understand what their options are, from civil and criminal routes to mediation, family work and circles of support.
- Keeping the response proportionate. Paragraph 14.98 warns that interventions removing all family contact “may also be experienced as abusive interventions”.
- Involving family, friends or an advocate with the person’s agreement. A relative may be the person’s main support, or the source of the harm.
- Feeding back and checking at the end. Were the outcomes fully achieved, partly achieved or not achieved? Does the person feel safer? Paragraph 14.105 accepts that wishes may change over time.
A care worker who asks “what would you like to happen?” and writes down the answer has already done the first part of MSP. For more on planning care around the individual, see our guide to person-centred care.
Does Making Safeguarding Personal mean doing whatever the person wants?
No. This is a common misunderstanding. Some staff hear “person-led” and stop acting as soon as someone says “leave it”. The guidance takes a middle path.
On one side, an adult with mental capacity has the right to make choices about their own life, including choices that involve risk. Paragraph 14.108 says the adult “is best placed to make choices about their wellbeing which may involve taking certain risks”, and that if they have capacity and decline help, “this can limit the intervention that organisations can make”. The focus then shifts to harm reduction.
On the other side, the same paragraph continues: it “should not however limit the action that may be required to protect others who are at risk of harm”, and “if the adult is thought to be refusing intervention on the grounds of duress then action must be taken”. Paragraph 14.95 adds that, whether or not the adult has capacity, action may be needed “if others are or will be put at risk if nothing is done or where it is in the public interest to take action because a criminal offence has occurred”.
Saying no also does not end the relationship. The guidance quotes the British Medical Association’s safeguarding toolkit: a person who refuses help “should not therefore be lost to or abandoned by relevant services”. Paragraph 14.14 gives the example of two brothers who refused services; their social worker kept visiting on their terms, and after almost a year they asked for help to move into supported housing.
So MSP is not about who wins. Even when you must act against someone’s wishes, you can still ask what they want for themselves and tell them what is happening and why.
When must you act even if the person says no?
These are the situations the statutory guidance says can justify acting, or sharing information, without the adult’s agreement. A care worker’s part is the same each time: report it to your manager or safeguarding lead and record what the person told you. Overriding someone’s wishes is decided by the local authority, the police or senior staff, not individual workers.
| Situation | Why action can still be taken | What MSP still means |
|---|---|---|
| Other adults are at risk, for example from the same person | Para 14.108: refusing help does not limit action needed “to protect others”. Para 14.95 says the same. | Explain that you must report because of the risk to others; keep the person’s own support separate and person-led. |
| Children are at risk | Para 14.96: wishes are balanced against “risk to others including any children affected”. Children’s safeguarding procedures apply. | Tell the adult what will happen unless that would increase the risk. |
| A crime may have been committed | Para 14.95: action may be taken “in the public interest” where a criminal offence has occurred. Paras 14.91 and 14.101: the police lead criminal investigations. | The person’s wishes are still considered “even if they do not wish to provide any evidence or support a prosecution” (para 14.91). |
| Coercion, control, duress or undue influence | Para 14.108: if refusal is on the grounds of duress, “action must be taken”. Para 14.92: information can be shared to check the person is not being “unduly influenced, coerced or intimidated”. | Speak to the person alone, safely; their “no” may not be freely given. |
| The person lacks capacity for this decision | Para 14.108: capacity must be assessed and decisions made in the person’s best interests under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. | Para 14.96: the wishes of people who lack capacity “are of equal importance”. |
| The concern involves a staff member or a care service | The BMA guidance quoted after para 14.95 gives an abusive adult “in a position of authority” as a reason to share. Para 14.187: confidentiality cannot be promised where other adults may be at risk. | Keep the person informed and ask what they want for their own care. |
| Someone is in immediate danger | Call 999. You do not need anyone’s consent to get emergency help. | Once people are safe, go back to asking what the person wants. |
Information sharing follows the same logic. Paragraph 14.92 says that when an adult with capacity does not want any action, “this does not preclude the sharing of information with relevant professional colleagues”. It adds: “It is good practice to inform the adult that this action is being taken unless doing so would increase the risk of harm.” Paragraph 14.187 says “confidentiality must not be confused with secrecy”. Under paragraph 14.188, where someone refuses consent, practitioners must consider whether an “overriding public interest” justifies sharing.
The guidance still refers to the Data Protection Act 1998, which has been replaced. The current law, the Data Protection Act 2018, includes a specific condition at Schedule 8, paragraph 4 for processing information without consent to protect an adult at risk. In practice, follow your employer’s policy and ask your safeguarding lead; for the wider rules on agreement to care, see our guide to consent in health and social care.
How does Making Safeguarding Personal work when someone lacks mental capacity?
MSP applies to everyone, including people who cannot make a particular decision. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 principles already point the same way, from presuming capacity to choosing the least restrictive option. Our Mental Capacity Act guide explains each principle and the two-stage capacity test.
For MSP, three points matter:
- Capacity is decision-specific. Someone may lack capacity to manage complex finances but still be able to say who they want to see and where they feel safe.
- Wishes still count. Paragraph 14.97 says that where an adult lacks capacity for safeguarding decisions, options should be identified “which help the adult stay as much in control of their life as possible”. A best interests decision must take into account the person’s past and present wishes and feelings.
- Someone should speak up for them. Family, a friend or an independent advocate.
The right to an advocate is set out in section 68 of the Care Act 2014, and it is not limited to people who lack capacity. For a section 42 enquiry, or a Safeguarding Adults Review about a person who is still alive, the local authority must arrange an independent advocate if it considers the person would have “substantial difficulty” in one or more of four things: understanding relevant information, retaining it, using or weighing it, or communicating their views, wishes or feelings. The duty does not apply if there is an appropriate person to support them who is not paid or professionally involved in their care. That person only counts as appropriate if the adult consents or, where they lack capacity to consent, the local authority is satisfied it is in their best interests. An urgent enquiry can start before an advocate is in place, but the duty continues.
How well is Making Safeguarding Personal working?
The Department of Health and Social Care’s Safeguarding adults, England, 2024 to 2025 data tables include a voluntary MSP measure (tables 8a and 8b) for concluded section 42 enquiries:
| Measure (England, 2024 to 2025) | Enquiries | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Concluded section 42 enquiries with an MSP response recorded | 144,625 | 100% |
| Person or representative asked about desired outcomes, and outcomes expressed | 103,390 | 71.5% |
| Asked, but no outcomes expressed | 19,645 | 13.6% |
| Not asked | 15,700 | 10.9% |
| Don’t know or not recorded | 5,890 | 4.1% |
| Where outcomes were expressed (103,000 with a result recorded): | ||
| Outcomes fully achieved | 69,980 | 67.9% |
| Outcomes partially achieved | 27,935 | 27.1% |
| Outcomes not achieved | 5,085 | 4.9% |
So about 85% of people, or their representatives, were asked what they wanted, and where they said what they wanted, about 95% got it fully or partly. But in 15,700 enquiries nobody asked. Treat the figures with care: the publication says the MSP data item is voluntary and not completed by every local authority, and the shares are our calculations from the published counts. Table 3a also records 6,670 section 42 enquiries that ceased at the individual’s request with no action taken.
What are examples of Making Safeguarding Personal?
These scenarios are invented and anonymised.
Financial abuse by a grandson
Mrs A, 84, has capacity and lives alone with daily home care. Her care worker notices she has no food in. Mrs A says her grandson has been “borrowing” from her card, but she does not want the police involved: “he’s all I’ve got”. The care worker records her words exactly and tells the safeguarding lead the same day. In the local authority’s enquiry, Mrs A says what she wants: to keep seeing her grandson, to get her money back under her control, and for him to get help. The plan includes a new card, support from her bank, and a family conversation she chooses to attend. Whether the police are informed is not simply her veto: it depends on factors such as whether anyone else is at risk. Our guide to financial abuse of adults at risk covers the signs and the reporting routes.
Domestic abuse by a partner
Mr B, 70, tells a support worker his wife “has a temper” and has pushed him. He wants it kept quiet. The worker cannot promise secrecy but explains who will be told and why. She also notices that his wife answers every question for him. If his refusal is not freely given, the guidance says action must be taken. The safeguarding lead arranges for Mr B to be seen alone, and his outcome, “I want to feel safe in my own home”, shapes a plan with domestic abuse support rather than an automatic move out.
Self-neglect at home
Mr C, 79, has filled his house with newspapers and refuses help to clear it. He understands the fire risk and can weigh it up; he says the papers matter to him. Instead of a forced clear-out, the agreed outcomes are smaller and his own: a clear route to the front door, a working smoke alarm and regular visits from a worker he trusts. The case is reviewed, not closed.
A concern in a care home
Mrs D, a resident, tells a care worker that one night carer is rough during personal care, then adds “please don’t make a fuss”. Because other residents may be at risk from the same person, this must be reported, and the manager must refer it to the local authority. MSP still applies to Mrs D: the worker tells her what will happen, asks what she wants for her own care, and keeps her informed. See also our guide to organisational abuse.
What are the most common Making Safeguarding Personal mistakes?
- Process-led safeguarding. Measuring success by forms and timescales, while the person’s view never appears in the record.
- Not asking. Assuming you know what someone wants, or deciding they are “too confused” to be asked.
- Not recording. Writing “service user unhappy” instead of the person’s actual words and the outcome they asked for.
- Disappearing after the referral. The person is the last to hear what happened, although the guidance’s principles for local decision-making include “feeding back whenever possible”.
- Treating “no” as the end of the matter. Closing the case without checking for coercion, risk to others or a change in the person’s wishes.
- Treating “no” as irrelevant. Overriding someone with capacity because staff feel anxious, rather than because the guidance gives a reason.
- Talking to the family instead of the person. Relatives are not automatically the right people to speak for an adult.
- Risk-averse overprotection. Removing independence, such as making tea or going out alone, to remove every risk. Our guide to dignity in care explains why choice and control matter.
If your concerns are ignored, see our guide to whether whistleblowing is protected by law.
What does Making Safeguarding Personal mean for care workers and managers?
Care workers and support workers:
- notice and report concerns the same day through their organisation’s route, and call 999 if someone is in immediate danger
- ask the person, where it is safe, what they would like to happen, and write down their words
- tell the person honestly what they will do next, and never promise to keep abuse secret
- do not investigate or confront the alleged abuser
- keep supporting the person afterwards and pass on any change in what they want
Managers and safeguarding leads:
- decide on referral to the local authority and, where needed, the police and the Care Quality Commission
- make sure the person’s views and desired outcomes are in the referral, not just the facts
- consider capacity, coercion and the need for an advocate
- take part in section 42 enquiries when the local authority asks the service to carry one out
- feed back to the person and the staff member who raised the concern, and check whether outcomes were achieved
- build MSP into supervision, audits and training
The section 42 enquiry duty belongs to the local authority, which may ask a care provider to carry out some or all of the enquiry. A Safeguarding Adults (Advanced) Level 2 course is aimed at the first group and at team leaders who are often first to handle a concern. It does not qualify anyone to lead enquiries.
What should a Making Safeguarding Personal checklist include?
For anyone raising or handling a concern:
- Is anyone in immediate danger? If so, call 999 first.
- Have I asked the person, alone and safely, what they want to happen?
- Have I recorded their words, their desired outcomes and anything they do not want?
- Have I told them what I must do next and who will be told?
- Are other adults or children at risk? Could a crime be involved?
- Is there any sign of pressure, control or duress behind their answer?
- Is there any reason to doubt their capacity for this specific decision?
- Do they want, or need, a family member, friend or independent advocate?
- Is the planned response the least intrusive one that deals with the risk?
- At the end, has someone asked whether their outcomes were achieved and whether they feel safer?
What training supports Making Safeguarding Personal?
CQC-registered providers must give staff the training their role needs. Our guides to safeguarding training requirements and CPD requirements for care workers explain which levels apply. Three Nexis CPD courses fit MSP closely:
- Safeguarding Adults (Advanced) Level 2: what safeguarding adults means and the law, identifying abuse and neglect, mental capacity and consent, and multi-agency working with the local authority; 1.5 CPD hours
- Mental Capacity Act: the five principles, the two-stage capacity test, best interests, advocacy and DoLS; 2 CPD hours
- Person-Centred Care: core values, care plans built with the person, and capacity, consent and individual needs; 2 CPD hours
Together they cost £18 rather than £27 under the pay-for-2-get-3 offer, and care providers training 5 or more staff pay £6 a course place on our team plan. These are awareness-level CPD courses: they do not make anyone a safeguarding lead, an investigator or an advocate, and they do not replace your employer’s own safeguarding training and procedures. If you take one, start with Safeguarding Adults (Advanced) Level 2: 15 questions, 80% to pass, and an instant certificate.
£9 per course. CPD accredited, 100% online, verifiable e-certificate. Pay for 2, get 3 — any 3 courses for £18.
Frequently asked questions
What is Making Safeguarding Personal in simple terms?
It means doing adult safeguarding with the person, not to them. Staff ask the adult what they want to happen, plan around that where it is safe, and check at the end whether those outcomes were achieved.
Is Making Safeguarding Personal a legal requirement?
It is set out in chapter 14 of the Care and Support Statutory Guidance, and section 78 of the Care Act 2014 says local authorities must act under that guidance. Care providers are expected to work in line with it and with their local Safeguarding Adults Board procedures.
Can an adult refuse safeguarding support?
Yes, an adult with mental capacity can usually decline support for themselves. Action can still be taken if other people or children are at risk, a crime may have been committed, the person lacks capacity for the decision, or their refusal may be the result of coercion or duress.
Do I need consent to report a safeguarding concern?
No. You should ask what the person wants and tell them what you are doing, but you must not promise to keep abuse secret. Report through your organisation’s safeguarding route, and call 999 if anyone is in immediate danger.
What are desired outcomes in safeguarding?
They are what the person wants the safeguarding response to achieve, in their own words: for example feeling safe at home, stopping contact with someone, getting control of their money back, or seeing a case go to the police.
Who can be an advocate in a safeguarding enquiry?
A family member or friend can support the person if they agree, or if it is in their best interests where they lack capacity. If nobody suitable is available and the person would have substantial difficulty taking part, the local authority must arrange an independent advocate under section 68 of the Care Act 2014.
General information, not legal advice — if someone is in immediate danger call 999. This guide summarises the law and official guidance for England as checked on 22 October 2026; Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own safeguarding laws and procedures. Nexis CPD courses are CPD-accredited awareness training: they do not make anyone a safeguarding lead, investigator or advocate, and they do not replace employer safeguarding training or local procedures.