Search results for ‘Subject term:"challenging behaviour"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 5 of 5
Factors associated with long-term use of restrictive interventions
- Authors:
- RICHARDSON Ben, WEBBER Lynne S., LAMBRICK Frank
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 45(2), 2020, pp.159-166.
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
Background: Despite agreement that restrictive intervention (RI) should only be used as a last resort and for as long as required, little is known about long-term RI among individuals with a disability. This study examines long-term RI use. Method: From the Restrictive Intervention Data System dataset from Victoria, Australia, a cohort of 1,414 people reported to be restrained or secluded between July 2008 and June 2010 were identified. The primary outcome was restraint during the follow-up period (July 2013–June 2015). Measures of the secondary outcome, reasons for restraint cessation, were assessed via a self-report survey completed by 54 service providers. Results: At follow up, 74% of the cohort was still subject to RI. Antipsychotic medication use, a diagnosis of autism, and communication difficulties were associated with the use of restrictive interventions at follow up. Conclusions: Long-term RI is prevalent, but can be minimised by positive behaviour support. (Edited publisher abstract)
A preliminary investigation of the utility of the "Behavior Support Plan Quality Evaluation Guide II" for use in Australia
- Authors:
- WEBBER Lynne S., et al
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 36(4), December 2011, pp.273-277.
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
In Victoria, Australia, the Disability Act 2006 specifies that all people receiving a government-funded disability service and who are subject to a restrictive intervention (such as a chemical or mechanical restraint) must have a behaviour support plan. The quality of behaviour support plans can be an important influence on the quality of the support provided to people with disability who show challenging behaviours. The Behavior Support Plan Quality Evaluation Guide II has been used to assess behaviour support plans to support children in schools in the United States. This study examined its usefulness for assessing behaviour support plans designed for adults with an intellectual disability in community support services in Australia. The researchers surveyed experienced practitioners about the relevance of the evaluation guide components, and an audit was conducted of randomly selected behaviour support plans submitted as a statutory requirement. The findings showed evidence of acceptable validity and reliability, and evidence of the need for substantial improvement in the quality of behaviour support plans. The authors conclude that the findings support the utility of the Behavior Support Plan Quality Evaluation Guide II to inform and evaluate service planning in supporting adults with intellectual disability who show challenging behaviour.
Restrictive interventions for people with a disability exhibiting challenging behaviours: analysis of a population database
- Authors:
- WEBBER Lynne S., McVILLY Keith R., CHAN Jeffrey
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 24(6), November 2011, pp.495-507.
- Publisher:
- Wiley
People with an intellectual disability whose behaviours are perceived to be of serious harm to themselves or others are at risk of being subjected to restrictive interventions. Prevalence rates are difficult to determine because restrictive interventions are defined differently across jurisdictions and because means of data collection vary. Most research is unable to draw on the results of population-level data. This study reports the use of chemical and mechanical restraint and seclusion in the State of Victoria, Australia, over a 12-month period. The data reported are those collected by government and community service organisations in keeping with their statutory obligations. At the beginning of the study 152 service providers were registered to use restrictive interventions. During the course of the year-long study just under 31,000 episodes of restrictive interventions were reported involving 2102 people; the majority were subjected to chemical restraint. The use of restraint was found to be routine rather than a strategy of last resort. Consistent with data from the UK and USA, those subjected to restrictive interventions were more likely to be young males with multiple disabilities, including autism. The authors conclude that systemic policy and procedural developments are needed to address current use of restrictive interventions, together with a longitudinal study to evaluate the effectiveness, of alternative, non-restrictive strategies.
The use of restrictive interventions in Victoria, Australia: population data for 2007-2008
- Authors:
- WEBBER Lynne S., et al
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 35(3), September 2010, pp.199-206.
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
In Victoria, Australia, all disability service providers who use restrictive interventions are required by the Disability Act (2006) to register with the Senior Practitioner, appoint an Authorised Program Officer to monitor the use of these practices within their own service, and report the use of chemical and mechanical restraints and seclusion to the Senior Practitioner using the Restrictive Intervention Data System (RIDS). The data included in this paper summarise findings from the first 12 months of the RIDS as collated at March 2009. During the year from July 2007 to June 2008, approximately 9% of people who were receiving a disability service were subjected to a restrictive intervention which included about twice as many males as females. The proportion of males subject to restrictive intervention was higher (65%) than would have been expected based on the proportion of males with an intellectual disability receiving a funded disability service in Victoria (58%). Most subjects (98%) were reported to have either an intellectual disability and/or an acquired brain injury, and the majority had more than one disability. The majority were subjected to some form of chemical restraint. Chemical restraint constituted 96% of routine interventions and 57% of PRN and emergency interventions combined. Mechanical restraint was used in 9% of subjects and seclusion in 7%. Limitations of the data are discussed.
Factors associated with the use of mechanical restraint in disability services
- Authors:
- WEBBER Lynne S., et al
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 44(1), 2019, pp.116-120.
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
Background: Mechanical restraint refers to the use of materials or devices to restrict the behaviours of a person with a disability, where the restraint is neither for therapeutic purposes or required by law. The inappropriate use of mechanical restraint is recognised in legislation and policy as a violation of people’s human rights, and a risk to their health and wellbeing. Understanding who is at risk of mechanical restraint may assist service providers to better support people with a disability. Method: State-wide data collected between July 2012 to June 2013 were sourced. Odds ratios were used to describe the associations between individual characteristics and whether an individual was subjected to mechanical restraint. Results: Individuals with certain characteristics, such as the presence of a hearing, physical, neurological, communication or visual impairment, and autism spectrum disorder had an increased likelihood of being mechanically restrained. Conclusion: Initiatives to reduce mechanical restraint should pay particular attention to the support needs of those with sensory impairments and complex communication support needs including those with autism spectrum disorder and those with a physical impairment. (Edited publisher abstract)