Restrictive Physical Interventions: An Audit of Practice

1. Restrictive Physical Interventions: An Audit of Practice Current 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

2. On Research … Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers Voltaire

3. On Research … There is a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot Steven Wright

4. 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’

5. Inertia "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 • 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

6. We needed to know ….. • What we needed to know • How to know it • What to do with what we learn

7. 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

8. 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

9. Focus Areas • An exploration of factors affecting the likelihood of RPIs being used in any given setting • The structures in place within organisations serving the children and young people of Salford which might minimise the use of RPIs • Current practice related to the recording of RPIs • Current practice related to the reporting of RPIs

10. 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

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

12. Likelihood An 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

13. 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].’

14. Behaviour Support Structures The 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

15. 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.’

16. Recording Current 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

17. 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.’

18. Reporting Current 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

19. 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.’

20. 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