improving the quality of behaviour support plans to decrease restrictive interventions and increase...
Post on 31-Mar-2015
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Improving the quality of behaviour support plans to decrease restrictive interventions and increase quality of lifeDr Lynne WebberOffice of Professional Practice, Department of Human Services, Victoria
What we know from research:
Over 20 years of research into Positive Behaviour Support shows use of PBS can:
• Increase:
• A person’s skills (Cook et al., 2012)• Quality of life (Claes, Hove, Vandevelde, van
Loon & Schalock, 2012)• Client outcomes (LaVigna & Willis, 2012)
2
PBS can reduce• Behaviours of concern (Carr et al., 1999; McClean &
Grey, 2012)• Risk of work place injuries (LeBel, Chan & Webber,
2012)• Referrals from clients with complex needs (Crates &
Spicer, 2012)• Use of restrictive interventions (Webber, Richardson,
Lambrick & Fester, 2012)
3
4
Restrictive intervention: any intervention that is used to restrict the rights or freedom of movement of another person.
• Chemical restraint• Mechanical restraint• Physical restraint• Seclusion• Other restrictive interventions
Restrictive interventions
5
What our research in Victoria tells us
1. Current wave of PBS through Victoria is making a difference (McVilly, Webber, Paris & Sharp, 2012)
2. Support workers act on plans (Webber, McVilly, Fester & Chan, 2011)
3. Quality plans can lead to improvement in outcomes for people with a disability (Webber, Richardson, Lambrick & Fester, 2012)
Quality of behaviour support plans
Behaviour Support Plan-Quality Evaluation II (Browning Wright, Saren & Mayer, 2003) 12 components:
1. Behaviour/s of concern
2. Function/s of all behaviour/s of concern
3. Triggers the behaviour
4. Setting factors that support the behaviour/s
5. Environmental changes
6. Reactive strategies
6
Quality components of BSP-QE II cont.
7.Replacement behaviour that meets the same function as behaviour
8. Strategies, tools or materials used to teach the replacement behaviour/s
9. Goals and Objectives
10. Reinforcement to use replacement behaviours
11. Team co-ordination
12. Communication & review
7
Scores in 2010-11
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
0
1
2
8
Research questions
1. Is quality of behaviour support plans associated with the number of restrictive interventions used?
▪ Preliminary evidence : Yes! (Webber, McVilly, Fester & Chan, 2011)
2. Do some components of quality have more impact on restrictive interventions than others?
▪ FBA could almost halve challenging behaviours (Carr et al., 2004)
9
What is cut-off for reasonable quality?BSP-QE II:
• Total scores range 0-24
• Component scores range 0-2 (2 x 12=24)
• Reasonable quality appears to be at least total =13 points (>50%) for reducing the use of PRN restrictive interventions!
• Good quality plans (13+) associated with less restraint and seclusion use
• Poor quality plans (<13) associated with no change or more restraint and seclusion use
10
Quality plans reduces the use of restrictive interventions
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Behaviour/s Predictors Analysis Team coord Environment Reactive Function/s Skills Goals
Quality Components
Dif
fere
nce i
n r
estr
icti
ve i
nte
rven
tio
ns
Poor Quality
High Quality
11
Bottom line
PBS is:
• not only good evidence-based practice
• but also ethical practice in supporting people who show behaviours of concern
12
13
Positive Intervention Framework
Proactive strategies
What to do to prevent the behaviour occurring
De-escalation strategies
What might help when the behaviours occur
Short-term change strategies for rapid change to behaviour
Change the environment
Teaching skills Evaluate safety of all
Try least restrictive interventions first: e.g., ask what the person wants
14
Short term strategies: providing immediate support
Areas to think about for people who have complex high needs:
impact of trauma and attachment
importance of syndrome specific characteristics
medical conditions
mental illness
medications
knowing the person’s preferences and abilities.
human relations and sexuality
sensory impairments
communication
Functional Behavioural Assessment (FBA)
• Understanding the message underlying the person’s behaviour (McClean & Grey, 2007)
• Not based on opinion or intuition
• Requires careful observation
15
Changing the environment
• What changes to the psycho-social and physical environment that would decrease the likelihood of the behaviour’s occurring?
• Anna and bus travel• Suzi and the doona cover• TJ and his name
16
Replacement skills• Replace the need to use the behaviour of
concern
• To determine replacement skills need to know:▪ Function of behaviour because it must meet the function of the
behaviour▪ Example TJ—kicks staff to let them know he is unhappy about
something▪ Ask instead of kicking staff, TJ will be taught to…..
17
Replacement skills
• Must be able to be learnt by the person
• Must be able to be taught by staff and used by all support staff and carers
• Must be reinforced/encouraged
18
19
Teaching replacement skills
In considering replacement skills need to plan:• How will you teach it to the person?• How will you make sure everyone uses it?• How will you reinforce/encourage the use of it?• Time for a result (months rather than days)• What will be accepted as mastery of the skill?• Did you get it right?
19
20
Monitoring and review
1. How will you know which positive behaviour supports are working?
2. Goals and objectives of the BSP for teaching skills:
1. Goal increase: What do you want to increase by when?▪ Replacement behaviour
2. Goal to decrease: What do you want to decrease by when? ▪ Behaviours of concern
20
21
De-escalation strategies: Immediate response strategies
What to do when behaviour of concern occurs.
1. Assess safety of person and others, if safe:• Suggest the person use their replacement behaviour and support
them to use it.• Try to help the person resolve the issue.
• If not safe:• Reactive strategies (need to know what works for this person)• Least restrictive first• Leaving• Calling emergency services
21
Debriefing
• When adverse incidents occur, everyone involved is debriefed as soon as possible
• Problem solving (learning opportunity) not punitive (Grafton services in USA view it as “treatment failure”)
• Need a good description of what happened
22
Debriefing
• Immediate Debriefing: everyone is safe• Learning opportunity (individual)• Learning opportunity (employees)*
* Sanders, K. Marshall, L. & Sadeghzedah, S. (2012). Fostering quality of life and goal mastery for individuals with significant disabilities. Participant manual.
23
Learning opportunity: Employees
• Purpose: Determine strategies to prevent similar incident
• When: within 48 hours• Participants: Employees and support team• Outcomes:
▪ Understand everyone’s perspectives▪ Develop a plan to avoid similar incident ▪ Offer “Employee Assistance Programs” if available▪ Updates any missing team members with revised strategies▪ Changes are made to BSP etc
24
Learning opportunity: IndividualPurpose: understand individuals perspective
• Participants: Individual and employees that the individual wants to include
• Outcomes:
▪ Individual feels heard▪ Understands why the staff did what they did▪ Individual identifies triggers and alternative responses for future▪ Documented and followed up with support team
25
26
Implementation of BSP
• The support team believes it will work (McClean & Grey, 2012) • The interventions are implemented by the team:
• Involve as many of support team that is possible• For casual or temp workers BSP must be easy to understand
WHY?
• Good quality behaviour support will result in:
▪ Decreases in use of restrictive interventions and behaviours of concern
▪ Increases in skills, competence, self-determination
Leading to:◦ Less restraint and seclusion◦ Achieving positive lifestyle change ◦ Increases in quality of life
top related