Physical Interventions for People with Intellectual Disabilities: Initial Survey of Training and Evaluation of a Policy Framework

Abstract

Background. Physical interventions for people who have intellectual disabilities are sometimes necessary, even though they are known to present dangers to both service users and staff. The present report concerns an initial study of training in physical interventions amongst a group of senior staff and their views on a recent policy framework on physical interventions developed by the British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) and National Autistic Society (NAS). Method. The participants in this initial study included those who had attended conferences on the policy and those who had purchased the policy document. All participants were sent a questionnaire asking them about their training in, and use of, physical intervention methods, and their opinions on the policy document. Results. The participants came from a variety of services and were relatively well qualified and senior because of the way the sample was derived. They mostly had some training in physical intervention methods, although the type of training varied somewhat with their employing organization. Most participants were very positive about the BILD and NAS policy framework, and about two‐thirds of the participants said that their services had, or were developing, a written policy on physical interventions. Conclusions. This group of staff, many of whom were trained in physical interventions, rated the BILD and NAS policy framework as very helpful. There remained a clear need for guidance with respect to the advantages and disadvantages of the many available methods, and an evidence base on which to judge the effectiveness of different methods of physical interventions.

Physical Interventions with People with Intellectual Disabilities: Staff Training and Policy Frameworks

“…Participants in all of the groups noted various strengths of the Policy Framework, including the broad overall perspective, the fact that it was useful for staff training and policy development, the fact that summaries were provided for each section, the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ practice examples and the action points. Respondents were generally extremely positive in their comments (examples of comments from participants in group 1 are given in Murphy et al . 2001).…”

“…Of those who did comment on weaknesses, it was very rare for these to be direct criticisms. Most often, the plea was for more guidance (see Murphy et al . 2001; for details of the comments from group 1).…”

“…Of those who did comment on weaknesses, it was very rare for these to be direct criticisms. Most often, the plea was for more guidance (see Murphy et al 2001; for details of the comments from group 1). By far, the most common other comment, however, related to the need for guidance on training techniques, with many participants clearly feeling that there were far too many alternative 'brands' of physical intervention available, with no guidance on which 'brand' was suitable for their organization or for particular service users.…”

“…The study involved three groups of participants (see below). Some of the results for group 1 have already been published in a brief report (Murphy et al 2001) but those are included here where comparisons across the groups are of interest. Results for groups 2 and 3 have not appeared elsewhere.…”