andy
28-07-2008, 02:27 PM
Conference Evaluating The Implications of a Restrictive Practices Law Oslo June 2008.
In 2002 a law was passed by the Norwegian parliament, which limited the use of restrictive procedures. The evaluation of the impact of this law is currently an ongoing process. This conference was held to review the implications and outcomes of the law.
The use of force law restricts the use of any physical interventions in care settings. My understanding is that restraint holds in extreme situations can only be used if there are two staff available. The key element is that any use of restraint should have a reduction action plan to prevent the prolonged use of such methods.
What staff training is provided for care workers?
Some staff appear to receive training in PI, there appears to be no standard training in Norway.
How is it monitored?
There are three levels of intervention and monitoring to the Norwegian law on coercive practices. Breeches of the law can be minor, moderate or severe. In severe cases the government body can in theory apply sanctions.
Evaluation of the effect of the law has been conducted by Tina Handegarde. She interviewed over 70 workers (ranging from care workers to service leaders). She has found that about one third of the organisations in Norway are implementing the new law appropriately. The characteristics of these organisations tend to be that they focussed actively on issues surrounding restraint including monitoring and developing alternatives. Services which struggled with the new law tended to be less focussed. The effect was not just restricted to non health services. In some cases organisations claimed to be restraint free when this was not the case
Most service directors reported that the law has made discussion about restrictive practices more open.
There are problems applying the law. Some staff wondered whether there is now too much power in the hands of service users.
Emphasis is on preventative strategies and on developing alternatives to restraint. A key focus is training that helps staff to reflect on their attitudes.
The advantage of the law is that it makes demands on services but it also makes demands on individual care workers in terms of their responsibilities.
There are difficulties implementing the law in the municipalities of Norway (there are 440 of these!). These are very small areas which makes implementation very difficult. Some services have not improved and there would appear to be a negative attitude to the law in these areas. This is possibly due to the problems involved in prioritising the law.
There are problems of recruiting staff to learning disability services due to a negative media image about the work.
Andy McDonnell,
July 2008.
In 2002 a law was passed by the Norwegian parliament, which limited the use of restrictive procedures. The evaluation of the impact of this law is currently an ongoing process. This conference was held to review the implications and outcomes of the law.
The use of force law restricts the use of any physical interventions in care settings. My understanding is that restraint holds in extreme situations can only be used if there are two staff available. The key element is that any use of restraint should have a reduction action plan to prevent the prolonged use of such methods.
What staff training is provided for care workers?
Some staff appear to receive training in PI, there appears to be no standard training in Norway.
How is it monitored?
There are three levels of intervention and monitoring to the Norwegian law on coercive practices. Breeches of the law can be minor, moderate or severe. In severe cases the government body can in theory apply sanctions.
Evaluation of the effect of the law has been conducted by Tina Handegarde. She interviewed over 70 workers (ranging from care workers to service leaders). She has found that about one third of the organisations in Norway are implementing the new law appropriately. The characteristics of these organisations tend to be that they focussed actively on issues surrounding restraint including monitoring and developing alternatives. Services which struggled with the new law tended to be less focussed. The effect was not just restricted to non health services. In some cases organisations claimed to be restraint free when this was not the case
Most service directors reported that the law has made discussion about restrictive practices more open.
There are problems applying the law. Some staff wondered whether there is now too much power in the hands of service users.
Emphasis is on preventative strategies and on developing alternatives to restraint. A key focus is training that helps staff to reflect on their attitudes.
The advantage of the law is that it makes demands on services but it also makes demands on individual care workers in terms of their responsibilities.
There are difficulties implementing the law in the municipalities of Norway (there are 440 of these!). These are very small areas which makes implementation very difficult. Some services have not improved and there would appear to be a negative attitude to the law in these areas. This is possibly due to the problems involved in prioritising the law.
There are problems of recruiting staff to learning disability services due to a negative media image about the work.
Andy McDonnell,
July 2008.