Navigating Biases in Client Care: Social Media and the Internet

At access: technology, we are passionate about digital wellbeing— it is not just the technology itself we love, but more importantly how people choose to use it. The internet is a space for learning, connection and independence, but it also presents risks. When it comes to our clients' participation in society, our goal is always to maximise access while minimising foreseeable risk of harm. When it comes to digital wellbeing we work to ensure that clients can navigate the digital world safely and meaningfully, without unnecessary restrictions on their rights and freedoms.

Striking this balance is rarely straightforward. That’s why we take an educational, capacity-building approach. We’ve developed a specialist digital wellbeing curriculum, which we personalise for each client, to help them build the skills, awareness and confidence to manage online risks. From first mobile phones, to online dating, sexting and pornography; we also work closely with professionals, helping them make informed, fair and proportionate decisions about digital access.

I was recently asked by The British Association of Brain Injury and Complex Case Management (BABICM) to contribute a short article to their latest edition of Insight Magazine about navigating professional bias in the context of social media and the internet. I was, of course, delighted to write a contribution on a subject that raises important (and sometimes uncomfortable) questions because, ultimately, these conversations are vital if we are to safeguard not just our clients' safety but their freedom, dignity, and quality of life...

The Article:

"None of us make decisions in a vacuum. Whether we like it or not, our judgement is shaped by our background, personal experiences, societal stereotypes, and cultural influences. 

Our brains love patterns and shortcuts, and I often think bias is our mind’s “helpful” attempt to speed up our decision-making. Sometimes, it’s glaringly obvious. Other times, it’s so subtle we don’t even realise it’s there. In multidisciplinary teams, where everyone brings their own professional perspective (and, let’s be honest, their strong opinions-me included!), this can get tricky. The key isn’t pretending bias doesn’t exist-but ensuring we have a robust process to ensure it doesn’t run the show.

Our biases affect our attitudes toward risk and what we consider “appropriate”; nowhere is this more relevant than when considering a client’s access and use of the Internet. Without careful reflection, unchecked bias can prevent us from meeting our professional obligations, applying the principles of the MCA, and, more importantly, affects our clients’ rights, freedoms, dignity and quality of life.

How Bias Shows Up in Risk Assessment

I’m naturally cautious. I like a plan, a safety net, and a backup option. I don’t take unnecessary risks and instinctively lean toward avoiding harm. But I also know that being too risk-averse can be just as damaging as being reckless. Striking a balance is hard.

If your career has been shaped by complex and difficult safeguarding incidents, you may lean toward restriction. If you’ve seen clients thrive with more independence, you may advocate for greater freedom. These perspectives aren’t wrong-but they are personal. They’re not the same as an objective, client-centred approach.

Biases often bubble to the surface of our professional conversations when we discuss sexual expression, relationships, and personal autonomy. It’s common for a maternal or paternal instinct to come into play here, which, while stemming from a place of care, can result in overprotection. If we’re not careful, we risk holding clients to a different standard, one where they’re denied the messy, complicated, and sometimes unwise choices we all had the right to make.

We’ve all made impulsive or just plain daft decisions, trusted the wrong people, sent messages we regretted, and taken risks that didn’t pay off. But those experiences helped shape who we are. When we strip clients of the opportunity to take risks, even calculated ones, we deny them the chance to learn, grow, and fully participate in life.

Moving Beyond Fear-Based Decision-Making

A fear-based approach to online safeguarding rarely leads to better professional decision making. In my experience it often leads to over-restriction.

When decisions about our clients’ access to the internet need to be made, collaboration with other professionals is essential. It can be helpful to consider:

• What are people the same age as our client typically doing online? Is this behaviour or activity common for their demographic? If yes, are we holding them to an unfair or infantilising standard?
• If the client is making unwise or risky decisions, have they had an adequate (and I really stress that word) programme of support to help them develop online decision-making skills? If not, this is where we must focus—and urgently.
• Is our response and perception of risk fair and proportionate? Are we reacting based on actual harm, risk, or just on what makes us uncomfortable?

I’ve seen clients struggle with online risks: exploitation, harmful content, compulsive use. But I’ve also seen clients flourish, building friendships, gaining independence, finding community. The internet is not just a tool; it is a space where people live, learn, and connect. It’s a place for good and bad. It deserves the same careful, thoughtful approach we apply to every other area of client care.

By acknowledging our biases, understanding that protection does not always mean restriction and focusing on practical, education and rights-based solutions, we move beyond fear-driven decisions. We empower clients to engage with the world—safely, meaningfully, and on their own terms."

BABICM members can read this article, alongside contributions from Dr Penny Trayner, Dr Kate Heward and Paula Hansen in the March 25 edition of Insight Case Management Magazine.