Safety indices associated with the use of contingent restraint procedures

Spreat, Scott; Lipinski, David P.; Hill, Jane; Halpin, Mary

doi:10.1016/s0270-3092(86)80020-0

Cited by 48 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such tertiary prevention strategies are often poorly developed and tend to place undue reliance upon protective devices, mechanical restraint and general sedation (Griffin et al, 1986b;Richmond et al, 1986). The need to address the impact of such strategies on the social ecology of services is highlighted by indications that, in institutional settings at least, restraint is more frequently employed when clients are receiving positive behavioural programming and less frequent when aversive programmes are used and that use of mechanical restraint results in fewer client and staff injuries than does personal restraint (Hill & Spreat, 1987;Spreat et al, 1986). Preferred alternatives are likely to be based upon combinations of 'non-aversive' programming and physically blocking attempts to self-injure (LaVigna & Donnellan, 1986;McGee et al, 1987a,b).…”

Section: Epidemiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐injurious Behaviour: An Overview of Recent Trends in Epidemiological and Behavioural Research

Emerson

1992

Mental Handicap Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent developments in epidemiological and applied behavioural research and practice are reviewed. Three key themes in applied behavioural approaches are identified and discussed: an increasing tendency to base interventions upon prior experimental analyses; the use of communication as a metaphor in understanding the function of self‐injurious behaviour; a questioning of the social validity of aversive interventions.

show abstract

Section: Epidemiological Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self‐injurious Behaviour: An Overview of Recent Trends in Epidemiological and Behavioural Research

Emerson

1992

Mental Handicap Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Implementation of PR should only be considered if (a) less restrictive procedures have been ineffective, (b) there is clinical justification for its use, (c) the emphasis of intervention is on positive behavior support, (d) careproviders receive comprehensive training, (e) treatment effects are continuously evaluated, and (f) PR reduction and elimination are therapeutic objectives (Lennox et al 2011;Reed et al 2013;Sturmey 2009) Notably, PR is not easy to implement, can cause injury, and even death (Chan et al 2012;Spreat et al 1986;Tilli and Spreat 2009), and may function as positive reinforcement (Favell et al 1978;Magee and Ellis 1988). However, as articulated by Chan and colleagues (Chan et al 2012(Chan et al , 2014Rickard et al 2013), perhaps the most critical concerns about PR are the vulnerability of people with ID to restrictive procedures, their freedom from potentially abusive treatment, and the protection of fundamental human rights as declared in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (United Nations 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

Luiselli¹,

Sperry²,

Draper³

et al. 2017

Adv Neurodev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parents-guardians of adults who had intellectual disability completed a social validity assessment that documented their attitudes and opinions about physical restraint. Both parents-guardians of adults that had and had not experienced physical restraint rated most highly that (a) physical restraint should only be used if less intensive procedures have failed and (b) physical restraint can be adapted to ensure safety and reduce risk of harm. They endorsed less favorably that effective use of physical restraint makes it possible for individuals to progress and achieve a better quality of life. The parents-guardians of adults that had not experienced physical restraint differed from the parents-guardians of adults with a physical restraint history in acceptance of physical restraint to ensure safety of their family member. We discuss these findings and implications for habilitation services programs.

show abstract

“…Physical interventions or restraint procedures are sometimes employed in community care services, and in specialist health services for people with intellectual disabilities (IDs), mental health needs or the elderly, usually in order to prevent children or adults from harming themselves or others through self‐harm or aggression. Harris (1996) noted that such procedures were normally justified as being ‘in the best interests’ of the service users, but it is known that injuries to service users sometimes result, especially when the restraint is ‘unplanned’ (Spreat et al . 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Murphy

Kelly-Pike

McGill

2001

Research Intellect Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Safety indices associated with the use of contingent restraint procedures

Cited by 48 publications

References 2 publications

Self‐injurious Behaviour: An Overview of Recent Trends in Epidemiological and Behavioural Research

Self‐injurious Behaviour: An Overview of Recent Trends in Epidemiological and Behavioural Research

Parent-Guardian Evaluation of Physical Restraint Among Adults with Intellectual Disability: a Social Validity Assessment

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About