Interesting read

[forumAdmin]

This discussion forum covers some key areas - BILD, MIllfields, PROACT-SCIPr-UK, STUDIO III etc - alas, nothing very favourable but its good to know what we are up against!

http://www.napicu.org.uk/discus/discus.cgi?pg=prev&topic=5&page=423 (http://www.napicu.org.uk/discus/discus.cgi?pg=prev&topic=5&page=423)

When you have had a read come back and comment here...

[forumAdmin]

well sorry peeps
seems that while we could see it when I posted we cannot now.

the last post did say that it was such a long thread the admin was suggesting using another......

if anyone has access can they let us know

thank you to member winky (I believe) for letting me know as I would not have gone to the link again.

[kris]

On clicking your link
http://www.napicu.org.uk/discus/discus.cgi?pg=prev&topic=5&page=423 (http://www.napicu.org.uk/discus/discus.cgi?pg=prev&topic=5&page=423)
you should be asked to provide username and password
In username type user and in password type discuss. You should now be able to access the discussion forum - makes for an interesting though slightly concerning read!

[forumAdmin]

thanks Kris

[Martin Galvin]

Can the following be posted?
The argument that the use of C & R, and the believe that it is O.K. to inflict pain on an individual in order to manage their aggression and violence is a tradition way of thinking. People who advocate this approach need to step out of ‘the stone age’. In the past, I myself was trained to use C & R about 12 years ago, and I must admit at the time I was delighted to learn a physical skills to keep me safe in the workplace. However, I had a huge awakening, I now use an approach called ‘Studio III - A low Arousal Approach’ and this way of working has reduced the number of incidents in our service over the past seven years; we have the evidence to support this.

Question for C & R advocates: What if the individual you are restraining is not able to show or express that they are experiencing pain, what are you going to do? Apply MORE pressure causing further pain!

I believe that when people advocate for C & R it is because they have not researched alternative approaches or they are afraid of ‘change’. In my opinion the service provider has a responsibility and more importantly a DUTY OF CARE to provide the latest state-of-the-art technology based on best practice. This must uphold the law i.e. restraint must be for the least amount of time, in the least intrusive way and used as a last resort. It is my view and my personal experience that carers go ‘hands on’ only when they feel that they have run out of other things to do. The responsibility of carers’ is to increase the menu of things to do before they go hand-on. Imagine being asked the following question at an investigation. Could you have done anything else before you went hands on?

Martin
Dublin, Ireland

[anon_e-mouse]

Remember this is pretty much mainstream school of thought. It seems that the original thread is years old maybe opinion has changed in that group.

What i find interesting is the justification for continuing and the references given that apparently "prove" that people should carry on doing things that involve wrist and arm locks and floor restraints.

There is interest in "a pain free alternative" it would be useful to see what objections people have to one method vs another this year...

[bethr]

A further thought - how can you expect to build good relationships with people, and have mutual trust and respect when you manage their physical aggression in this way? As a personal thing; there is no way i would want to engage with someone who is ready and willing to use 'pain' and 'control' as part of their interaction with me. What message is that giving?

Surely we should remember as a our first thought, everyone is human, and just because some individuals may have some difficulties in expressing how they feel, it does not mean that 'we' (used loosely) have the right to respond in this way, often under the guise of 'remaining safe'.

Sorry all - bit of a rant!