Leadership in Practice
The UK’s fastest-growing news and insight platform for the care sector.
Practical advice, strategies and insights to help care sector leaders attract, recruit, retain and develop exceptional teams. Our guidance covers everything from writing job adverts that attract the right people and identifying interview red flags to understanding the cost of a toxic team member, with a range of resources to help you build stronger, more effective workforces.
Care workers regularly support people through fear, pain, confusion, grief and distress. They may work with individuals whose dementia, learning disability, mental health, acquired brain injury or other needs can affect how they communicate and behave.
Understanding what may be driving someone’s behaviour is a vital part of compassionate care. It helps teams respond without judgement and look for unmet needs, environmental triggers or changes in health. But understanding why aggression occurs does not mean pretending nobody was harmed by it.
Care workers can be shouted at, threatened, intimidated, subjected to discriminatory abuse, hit, bitten, kicked or sexually harassed. Some are told this is simply part of working in care and expected to continue with the shift as though nothing happened.
It is not enough to say that care is demanding. Employers have a responsibility to assess the risks of violence and aggression and put appropriate measures in place to protect their workers.
When organisations discuss workplace violence, attention often focuses on incidents involving physical injury. This can leave other harmful behaviour minimised or unrecorded.
Aggression can include threats, persistent shouting, intimidation, humiliation, sexual comments, unwanted touching and racist, sexist, homophobic or disability-related abuse. It can come from a person receiving care, a relative, a visitor, a colleague or someone encountered while working in the community. An employee does not need to have visible injuries for an incident to matter.
A threat may leave someone frightened to return to a particular home. Repeated sexual comments can make every shift feel unsafe. Racist abuse that is dismissed because the person “does not understand” can still have a serious emotional effect on the worker experiencing it.
Employers must recognise the full range of behaviours that can affect staff safety and wellbeing.
Person-centred care requires teams to understand the individual rather than simply labelling them as difficult or aggressive. Behaviour may communicate pain, fear, sensory overload, confusion, frustration or an unmet need. A person may respond defensively because they do not understand what is happening or believe someone is entering their personal space without permission.
Medication, infection, constipation, changes in routine and environmental factors such as noise or unfamiliar staff may also contribute to distress. Exploring these causes can improve the person’s care and reduce future incidents. However, the search for an explanation must not erase the experience of the worker involved.
Both truths can exist together: the person may not have intended to cause harm, and the employee may still have been harmed. Compassionate care and workforce safety are not opposing priorities. A good response protects both.
A risk assessment should not remain unchanged when staff are repeatedly reporting aggression. Managers should review what happened before, during and after an incident. They should consider the environment, staffing levels, communication approaches, time of day and whether there were signs that the person was in pain, unwell or becoming distressed.
Previous incidents and near misses should inform the plan. If several workers have separately experienced the same behaviour, the organisation should not continue treating each event as unexpected.
Control measures might include changes to staffing, additional training, a revised support plan, environmental adjustments or different approaches to personal care. Some tasks may need two workers, and lone working arrangements may require reconsideration.
The response should be proportionate to the person and the risk. Generic instructions such as “remain calm” or “use de-escalation” are not enough when staff need clear guidance about a known situation.
The Health and Safety Executive makes clear that employers must put appropriate controls in place where the risk of workplace violence cannot be removed.
Aggression is sometimes discussed entirely as a training issue. Workers are told they need stronger communication or better de-escalation skills. Training matters, but it cannot compensate for unsafe staffing.
A rushed worker may have less time to explain what is happening, notice early signs of distress or allow someone to process a request. An unfamiliar agency worker may not know the individual’s communication needs or triggers. A lone worker may have no practical way to withdraw safely or call for immediate support.
When incidents occur, providers should examine whether staffing arrangements contributed. Were enough appropriately trained people present? Did they know the person? Was the team working under pressure? Could support be summoned quickly? It is unfair to hold an employee entirely responsible for managing a dangerous situation created partly by inadequate resources.
Care workers are often deeply committed to the people they support. This can make them reluctant to leave a situation, even when their own safety is deteriorating. Employees need clear guidance about when they should step back, seek assistance or leave an area. They should know how to summon help and what to do if the usual response is unavailable.
In homecare and other lone-working environments, this planning is particularly important. Workers need reliable contact arrangements, access to relevant risk information and confidence that concerns will be acted upon.
Nobody should be expected to remain in immediate danger to prove that they care. Withdrawing temporarily can protect everyone involved. It may give the person time and space to become calmer while preventing an escalating incident that causes greater harm.
Employees will stop reporting aggression if nothing appears to happen afterwards. An incident form should not be the final response. Managers need to review the information, speak to those involved and determine whether immediate or longer-term action is required.
Patterns across the service should also be examined. Several apparently minor incidents may reveal a significant risk when considered together. Staff should be told what action has followed their report, while respecting confidentiality. Even when the organisation cannot share every detail, the worker should know that the incident was taken seriously.
Near misses also matter. If someone narrowly avoided being injured, the organisation has been given an opportunity to act before a more serious event occurs. A low number of reports does not necessarily mean a safe service. It may mean employees have learned that reporting changes nothing.
Immediately after a frightening incident, workers often remember how their manager responded. Asking only whether the shift can continue sends a clear message about the organisation’s priorities.
Begin with the person. Check whether they are physically safe, whether medical attention is required and whether they feel able to continue working. Move them somewhere private and calm, away from further risk.
Do not pressure the employee to decide immediately that they are fine. Shock can affect how people understand what has happened, and distress may become more noticeable later.
Practical questions about records, witnesses and the remainder of the shift will still need to be addressed. They should not replace basic human concern. A simple acknowledgement matters: “That should not have happened to you. We are going to make sure you are supported and review what needs to change.”
Racist, sexist, homophobic and other discriminatory abuse can be particularly mishandled in care settings. Managers may explain that the person has dementia, lacks capacity or belongs to a generation in which different language was used. These factors may be relevant to understanding the behaviour, but they do not remove its effect on the employee.
The organisation may need to adapt communication, staffing or the person’s support plan. It may not always be appropriate or possible to respond through consequences in the same way as with someone who fully understands their behaviour. However, the worker should never be expected to quietly absorb abuse without acknowledgement or support.
Avoid repeatedly allocating the same employee to someone who targets a protected characteristic simply because changing the rota is inconvenient. Speak to the worker about what they need and ensure the response does not make them responsible for solving the discrimination. Being committed to care does not require someone to surrender their dignity.
Care organisations may hesitate to challenge aggressive relatives because they fear complaints, reputational damage or the loss of a package of care. This can leave staff exposed to shouting, threats and intimidation from people who fully understand their behaviour.
Families may be frightened, frustrated or grieving. They may have legitimate concerns about the care being provided. They still need to communicate without abusing workers. Set clear expectations about conduct and provide appropriate routes for raising concerns. Where behaviour crosses the line, managers, not frontline employees, should address it promptly.
Serious or repeated incidents may require formal warnings, restrictions or involvement from other agencies, depending on the circumstances and level of risk.
Employees should not be instructed to tolerate abuse because the person involved is a relative rather than someone receiving care.
The impact of an incident may not end when the worker goes home. They may replay what happened, struggle to sleep or become anxious before their next shift. Some feel embarrassed by their reaction or worry that colleagues will consider them incapable.
Managers should check in again after the immediate response. Offer appropriate wellbeing or occupational health support and discuss whether temporary adjustments are needed.
A useful debrief should allow learning without making the worker feel blamed. Questions should explore what happened and what could reduce the risk in future, rather than testing whether the employee followed every step perfectly while under threat. Colleagues who witnessed the incident may need support too. A serious event can affect the confidence of an entire team, particularly if workers believe the same thing could happen to them.
A standard online module completed once a year may satisfy an administrative requirement without preparing workers for the situations they actually encounter. Training should reflect the people being supported and the behaviours staff may reasonably face. It should include prevention, early recognition of distress, communication, de-escalation, safe withdrawal, emergency arrangements and post-incident reporting.
Workers also need opportunities to practise and discuss how the learning applies in their service. Training must be refreshed when needs change or incidents expose a gap. New and temporary staff should receive essential risk information before working alone, not after they encounter the problem.
Most importantly, training should never be used to transfer responsibility from the organisation to the individual. A trained employee still requires adequate staffing, safe systems and managerial support.
When experienced workers tell new employees that abuse is “just part of care,” they may believe they are helping them become realistic. In fact, they are passing forward a culture in which harm is normalised.
Leaders should make it clear that staff are expected to report incidents and will not be considered weak for doing so. Managers should avoid celebrating employees for enduring situations that should have been prevented.
Teams also need to know that raising a safety concern will not result in fewer shifts, damaged progression or a reputation for being difficult.
Psychological safety matters here. Workers must be able to say, “I did not feel safe,” without being told that somebody else managed the situation without complaining. Different people can be affected differently by the same behaviour. Support should not depend on who appears the most resilient.
Protecting care workers is sometimes treated as though it competes with person-centred support. In reality, frightened and unsupported employees cannot consistently provide the calm, attentive care people deserve.
A safe workforce is more able to build relationships, recognise changes and respond compassionately. Staff are also more likely to remain with an employer that acts when they are harmed. There will be care environments where aggression cannot be eliminated completely. That does not remove the employer’s responsibility to understand the risks, reduce them wherever possible and support people properly when incidents occur. Care workers accept responsibility, complexity and emotional challenge when they enter the profession. They do not agree to become targets.
Abuse is not part of the job. Protecting staff is.
Join organisations across health and social care that are investing in happier, healthier workplaces with the Daily Round Wellbeing Employer programme.
Download our Employer Wellbeing Brochure to discover what’s included, or become a Daily Round Wellbeing Employer today.
Posted by:
K Jadon
Editorial Assistant – The Daily Round
Busy day? We’ve got you covered. Get FREE daily news, practical insights, opportunities and wellbeing content, carefully curated for busy health and social care professionals. Just enter your details below to get The Daily Briefing delivered straight to your inbox.
newsdesk@dailyround.news