Sample policy · Positive behaviour support

Positive behaviour support policy template

Statutory anchor: Regulation 13 (safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment), Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/2936). This policy also engages Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment), Regulation 9 (person-centred care) and Regulation 10 (dignity and respect), the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the Human Rights Act 1998, alongside the recognised positive behaviour support and restraint-reduction standards. · primary source

Download the PDF

The PDF version of this template is the same content, formatted for adaptation in your document control system. The disclaimer above is repeated on the PDF cover.

Verivius pack version v1.1, 2026-07-21

1. What the regulation says

Service users must be protected from abuse and improper treatment in accordance with this regulation. (Reg 13(1) (the headline duty))

Systems and processes must be established and operated effectively to prevent abuse of service users. (Reg 13(2) (prevention systems))

Systems and processes must be established and operated effectively to investigate, immediately upon becoming aware of, any allegation or evidence of such abuse. (Reg 13(3) (investigation systems))

A service user must not be deprived of their liberty for the purpose of receiving care or treatment without lawful authority. (Reg 13(5) (lawful authority for deprivation of liberty))

ill-treatment (whether of a physical or psychological nature) of a service user, (Reg 13(6)(b) (ill-treatment))

neglect of a service user. (Reg 13(6)(d) (neglect))

The full text of the regulation is at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2936/regulation/13. Where this policy and the regulation diverge, the regulation wins.

2. Plain-English summary

Service users must be protected from abuse and improper treatment. You need effective systems to prevent abuse, and effective systems to investigate any allegation or evidence of abuse as soon as you become aware of it. Care must not be provided in a way that discriminates, uses disproportionate control or restraint, is degrading, or significantly disregards the service user's needs. Service users cannot be deprived of their liberty without lawful authority.

3. What the standards say

Positive behaviour support (PBS) is the recognised, evidence-based approach to supporting people whose behaviour challenges, in particular people with a learning disability or autism. It focuses on understanding why behaviour happens and changing the things that cause distress, so that the person's quality of life improves and restrictive interventions become rare or unnecessary. It sits within Regulation 13 (which prohibits improper treatment and disproportionate restraint), Regulation 9 and Regulation 10, the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the Human Rights Act 1998.

The Service must verify this policy against current PBS and restraint-reduction standards (for example the PBS Academy standards and the Restraint Reduction Network training standards) and the relevant regulations before adoption.

4. Scope

This policy applies to:

(The provider updates the scope to fit its own service and the people it supports.)

5. Roles and responsibilities

(The provider updates the named role-holders.)

6. Procedure

  1. Aims. The Service states its aim plainly: to improve the person's quality of life, to use proactive strategies that prevent distress, and to eliminate reactive or punitive measures.
  2. Functional behaviour assessment. For each person whose behaviour challenges, staff carry out a functional assessment to understand what the behaviour is communicating, what triggers it, and what keeps it going, drawing on the person, their family, and the people who know them.
  3. The PBS plan. The Service develops an individualised PBS plan based on the assessment, setting out the person's strengths and needs, the proactive strategies that improve their life and prevent distress, the early signs of distress and how to respond, and what to do if behaviour escalates. The plan is developed with the person and those close to them.
  4. Reviewing the plan. Each PBS plan is reviewed and updated regularly, and whenever the person's needs or circumstances change.
  5. Proactive first. Staff prioritise proactive and de-escalation strategies at all times. A restrictive intervention is never the first response.
  6. Restrictive interventions as a last resort. Where a restrictive intervention is genuinely unavoidable to prevent harm, it is used only in line with the restraint policy: lawful, necessary, proportionate, the least restrictive option, time-limited, and recorded. This policy and the restraint policy do not contradict each other.
  7. Data and evaluation. The Service records each behaviour-of-concern and each restrictive intervention, and uses the data to evaluate whether the support is working and to refine the strategies. A rising use of restriction is treated as a signal that the support needs to change.
  8. Cross-referencing. Any behaviour-of-concern that raises a safeguarding question is handled under the safeguarding policy, and any complaint is handled under the complaints policy. The three policies work together.
  9. Equality and inclusion. The PBS plan takes account of the person's cultural, linguistic, communication and disability needs, and the Service considers these through an equality lens so that support is fair and accessible.

7. Training requirement

8. Audit

The Service checks, on a stated cadence, that:

Audit findings are recorded in the provider's audit register; actions are logged in the improvement-actions register.

9. Record-keeping

PBS records (functional assessments, PBS plans, behaviour and restrictive-intervention records, reviews) are held as part of the person's care record for the period the NHS Records Management Code of Practice sets, and securely.

10. Related policies in this pack

11. A note on deprivation of liberty

Where supporting a person whose behaviour challenges raises questions of deprivation of liberty, the Service acts only with lawful authority. The Supreme Court judgment of 2 June 2026 overruled the Cheshire West "acid test": deprivation of liberty is now determined by a multifactorial assessment, not a single test. CQC confirms that the judgment has immediate effect and that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Regulation 11 consent requirements are unchanged. The Service follows DHSC's guidance published on 15 June 2026 and seeks legal advice where the position remains uncertain. The republished DoLS Code of Practice does not fully reflect the 2026 judgment.

12. Sources and further reading

This template is based on CQC's guidance for providers and managers, the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, and other topic-specific legislation and guidance listed below. It is a starting point for adaptation, not a substitute for legal, clinical, HR, safeguarding or specialist professional advice.

13. When to seek further advice

Seek specialist advice where the issue involves serious harm, safeguarding, deprivation of liberty, restraint, children, professional misconduct, controlled drugs, radiation, termination of pregnancy, infection outbreak, water safety, employment dismissal, DBS barring referral, or regulatory enforcement.

14. Document control

Version Date Author Changes
v1.1 2026-07-21 Verivius (sample) Replaced the pending-guidance wording with current DHSC guidance on the 2026 Supreme Court judgment.
v1.0 2026-06-05 Verivius (sample) New template authored to CQC's "what to include" for a positive behaviour support policy: strategic aims (proactive, eliminate reactive/punitive), functional behaviour assessments, individualised PBS plans with review, staff PBS training plus supervision and reflective practice, data collection and efficacy evaluation, restrictive interventions as a last resort governed by the restraint policy, cross-referencing to safeguarding and complaints, and equality and inclusion.
v1 2026-06-10 Verivius (sample) Conformed to the Verivius policy standard: anchored verbatim to Regulation 13, plain-English summary from the guidance manifest, AGNI/DoLS currency correction added, standard sources and document-control blocks.

This sample policy template was issued by Verivius. It is a template, not a substitute for legal advice or the provider's own policy-development process. Where this template and live law or regulator guidance diverge, the live source wins.

What good looks like here

Written from an ex-CQC inspector's chair, but the point is safe, well-led care your team can stand behind. Each row shows what strong evidence looks like, what thin evidence looks like, and where the expectation comes from.

Behaviour that challenges is communication, and the risk this policy carries is drift: once a positive behaviour support plan is written and left alone, staff gradually stop working out what the person is trying to tell them and start managing the behaviour instead. Drift arrives in small, reasonable-looking steps. A hold that lasts a little longer. A trip to the shops dropped because it is "a trigger". A door held shut while someone settles. Each step quietly narrows the person's life, and none of them looks wrong on the day it happens. The restrictive-intervention record is the only place the pattern becomes visible, because it turns single in-the-moment judgements into a trend a manager can see and challenge before restriction becomes the ordinary way this person is supported. Recording it properly also protects the member of staff who acted in a genuinely unavoidable moment, since the strategies tried first are there in writing rather than in someone's memory. Inspection reads the same trail, but the reason to keep it is simpler: a falling line usually means the person is having a better week, not just a better-governed one.

  1. Whether every person whose behaviour challenges has a current, individualised positive behaviour support (PBS) plan built on a functional assessment, not a generic plan or one that has fallen out of date. The inspector tests that the plan was developed with the person and those close to them and reviewed when needs change.

    Strong evidence: The functional assessment and the individualised PBS plan held in the person's care record, with review dates (procedure and audit sections).

    Weak evidence: Three people's positive behaviour support plans share the same triggers, the same "likes music, dislikes noise" wording and the same proactive strategies, because one template was copied round the service. The functional assessment is missing, or it is a stack of behaviour charts with tallies but no analysis of what the behaviour achieves for the person. The plan is dated at admission, carries no sign of the person or their family having been involved, and the review box is ticked in identical words each time, unchanged after a medication change, a new key worker or a house move.

    Professional guidance
  2. Whether restrictive-intervention data is recorded, reviewed and acted on, and whether use is rare and reducing over time. A flat or rising trend with no change to the support is the failure the inspector looks for; the policy treats rising restriction as a signal for the support to change.

    Strong evidence: The behaviour-of-concern and restrictive-intervention records and the review that acts on them (data-and-evaluation and audit sections).

    Weak evidence: Restrictive-intervention forms are completed and filed, but the only thing reaching the governance meeting is a monthly headline count with no breakdown by person, time of day, setting or trigger. The same one or two people account for most of the total month after month and their support has not changed, the trend is flat or rising across the year, and the review line reads "discussed, no concerns" with no action logged in the improvement register.

    CQC guidance
  3. Whether a restrictive intervention is genuinely a last resort, with proactive and de-escalation strategies tried first, and whether each use was lawful, necessary, proportionate, the least restrictive option, time-limited and recorded, not restraint used as a first response.

    Strong evidence: The restrictive-intervention records showing proactive strategies attempted first and the necessity and proportionality test met, governed by the restraint policy (procedure section).

    Weak evidence: The record says "became agitated, physical intervention used, settled" with nothing about which proactive or de-escalation strategies were tried first, how long the hold lasted, who decided it was needed, or why a less restrictive option would not have worked. Necessity and proportionality appear only as a pre-printed tick box with no reasoning, or the intervention is written up in the daily notes and never reaches the restrictive-intervention record at all.

    Law

    Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 13(4)(a); Mental Capacity Act 2005 s.6(2)-(3) and s.1(6)

  4. Whether any physical-intervention training came only from a recognised, certified provider, and whether staff have ongoing supervision and reflective practice, not restraint training from an uncertified source or a culture drifting toward reactive or punitive practice.

    Strong evidence: The training-register entries for PBS training and for certified physical-intervention training, and the supervision and reflective-practice records (training and audit sections).

    Weak evidence: The training register says "restraint training, completed" with no provider named and no certification held on file, or the session was delivered in-house by a senior member of staff who once attended a course elsewhere. Positive behaviour support appears as a short e-learning module with a printed certificate, and supervision notes cover rotas, annual leave and punctuality but never a single restrictive intervention, how the member of staff felt about it, or what would be tried differently next time.

    Professional guidance
  5. Whether any deprivation of a person's liberty rests on actual lawful authority (a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation in a care home, or the Court of Protection otherwise) assessed on the current multifactorial basis, not a single fixed test.

    Strong evidence: Records of lawful authority for any deprivation of liberty and evidence that legal advice was taken (Regulation 13(5) and the deprivation-of-liberty note).

    Weak evidence: The care plan states that the person is not able to go out unaccompanied, or that a door is kept locked for their safety, with no authorisation reference next to it, or a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation that expired months ago and was never renewed. The file justifies the restriction by reciting the old acid-test wording about continuous supervision and control and not being free to leave, as though that settles the question, with no record of legal advice taken and no Court of Protection application where the person lives in supported living or their own home rather than a care home or hospital.

    Law

    Mental Capacity Act 2005 s.4A (with Schedule A1 and s.16(2)(a)); Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 13(5)

  6. Whether a behaviour-of-concern that raises a safeguarding question is routed to the safeguarding policy, and any complaint to the complaints policy, not handled only as 'behaviour' and never escalated.

    Strong evidence: The behaviour-of-concern record and the cross-reference to the safeguarding and complaints policies (cross-referencing section).

    Weak evidence: A person was injured during a hold, or a member of staff was seen handling someone roughly, and it sits in the behaviour log with no matching safeguarding record and no evidence a referral under the local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements was considered, or a reason recorded for deciding it was not needed. A relative's concern about how their family member was treated appears only as a line in the behaviour notes, never logged, acknowledged or answered as a complaint, so nobody outside the staff team ever sees it.

    Law

    Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, reg 13(3) and reg 16(1)-(2)

Last verified 2026-07-20

Related Verivius content

Want help adapting this to your service?

A Verivius consultant can read your adapted policy against the live regulation and your service shape. The work fits inside a Mock Inspection engagement or a shorter consulting brief. A 20-minute conversation is the fastest way to find out whether the fit is right.

Get started free

Free to start, no card. A 14-day trial when you subscribe.

Last reviewed 21 July 2026