Restrictive Physical Interventions: An Audit of

PracticeCurrent practice in the use, recording and

reporting of Restrictive Physical Interventions affecting children and young

people with a learning disability or autism in Salford

Martin Hanbury

On Research …

Judge a man by his

questions rather

than

by his answers

Voltaire

On Research …

There is a fine line

between fishing and

just standing on the

shore like an idiot

Steven Wright

A Brief History• January 2012: Positive Behaviour Support Policy

is launched• March 2012: Challenging behaviour Strategy

Group convened• Summer Term 2012: Sub-group forms to evaluate

training needs across the Local Authority• Autumn Term 2012: Sub-group concludes ‘we

don’t know what we’re doing’

Inertia

• Period of inertia as

Strategy Group struggle to

find mechanisms to

support implementation of

the policy

• Recognition of need to re-

ignite activity and create

concrete plans

"An object at rest stays at rest

and an object in motion stays in

motion with the same speed and

in the same direction unless

acted upon by an unbalanced

force."

Newton’s First Law of Motion

We needed to know …..• What we needed to know

• How to know it

• What to do with what we learn

Black Holes• No real knowledge of

practice around Restrictive Physical Interventions (RPIs)

• No mechanism or system for finding out

• No way of identifying effective strategies for supporting professionals and practitioners in the field

The Research Project• Summer 2013: Strategy Group commissions research

into practice around RPIs

• Autumn 2013: Research project commences

• February 2014: Interim update

• May 2014: Part One Report completed

Focus Areas

1. An exploration of factors affecting the likelihood of RPIs being used in any given setting

2. The structures in place within organisations serving the children and young people of Salford which might minimise the use of RPIs

3. Current practice related to the recording of RPIs

4. Current practice related to the reporting of RPIs

Methods• Semi-structured interviews with organisational

leads• Briefing paper presented to participants before

the interviews • Selected group of participants• Interviews so far conducted with 18

organisations including primary, secondary and special schools

Limitations• Group has been selected• Engagement is voluntary• Demographic is narrow• Only education sector has contributed so far• Subjectivity in what is recorded

LikelihoodAn exploration of factors affecting the likelihood of RPIs being used in any given setting

• In the majority of settings RPI use is very rare

• This likelihood increases in special schools

• There is a growing perception of more issues emerging

around pupils within EYFS

Likelihood: Reponses‘ … very low likelihood – never done any.’‘ … very, very rare. No more than three per year.’‘Rare, one in three years … one specific pupil.’

‘Likelihood is around two or three a week.’‘Likelihood is … high risk.’

‘More difficulties at the young end … issues with EYFS.’ ‘Likely … four possible pupils [within EYFS].’

Behaviour Support StructuresThe structures in place within organisations serving the children and young people of Salford which might minimise the use of RPIs

• There are well thought through, coherent and effective approaches

• A member of the Senior Leadership is invariably responsible for

behaviour support

• There are no discernible differences between the quality of behaviour

support in special schools and EYFS settings and mainstream schools

Behaviour Support Structures: Responses

‘The Deputy Headteacher is the behaviour lead. Year Leaders and Pastoral

Leads provided the day to day management of behaviour.’

 

‘Each year group is under a member of the Senior Leadership Team … the

Deputy Headteacher is responsible for Behaviour and Safety.’

 

‘We’ve increased the pastoral structures in school to meet the needs of our

community.’

RecordingCurrent practice related to the recording of RPIs

• Wide variation in practice

• Rationale for recording is inconsistent across the Local

Authority

• Methods for the storage of records are numerous

Recording: Responses‘Behaviour log paper trail. Don’t use SIMS.’ ‘Incident book. An individual log for some pupils.’ ‘Record is made on SIMS – records all RPIs used. This is link to a more detailed record kept as a hard copy.’ ‘Incidents recorded via SIMS and via a paper-based document developed by school.’

ReportingCurrent practice related to the reporting of RPIs

• Inconsistency characterised this area of research with

significant differences in practice

• Some made reports to Governors, others to parents others

to no-one

• There was no universal method for reporting RPIs to the

Local Authority

Reporting: Responses‘No current systems for reporting to Governors or Local Authority.’ ‘Report to parents. Not necessarily reported to Governors.’ ‘If there is a CPP in place, social worker informed. YOS if related to potential offence.’ ‘No current reporting system.’

Conclusions• There are many examples of high quality practice in

this complex area• There are areas of practice which need to be

developed in the recording and reporting of the use of RPIs

• This development should be made a priority