|
Challenging behaviours: A personal journey
Ihave spent over 20 years of my working life supporting individuals who challenge services. As a clinical psychologist I have always been acutely aware that there has been a growing move towards a mechanistic data driven approach to managing these difficulties in a number of services. Over the years it took me a considerable period of time to realise that professionals who adopt these approaches can at times be part of the problem. They often make complex solutions to difficulties that sometimes do not require them. I will argue that in creating a behavioural technology to support people who present with challenging behaviours we need to be careful that we do not create a pseudo medical model.
To explain my own thinking processes I will adopt a personal narrative approach. In the mid 1980's I was a newly qualified clinical psychologist, trained in behaviour analysis; I even possessed a briefcase for a short period of time! (I should stress that this was a necessary part of the unofficial uniform at the time). To complete my rite of passage I wrote an article on functional analysis! Which was published and I guess very few people actually read, but, it did make me feel smart. My first real lesson in what I would describe as pragmatic psychology came within the first year. I was working in a house for a number of people who had been resettled into the community from a local institution. It is no surprise that many of these individuals were labelled as very challenging. Years of control by often well intentioned carers had led to a situation that the few pleasures in their life (food and drink were restricted). Sometimes individuals can be so challenging that they cannot 'earn' enough rewards. Given peoples extremely traumatic histories involving stressful life experiences and physical restraint; It was not surprising that food and drink was a major issue. I remember when one staff member complained that every time she 'unlocked' the kitchen door service users would almost charge past her. She was very upset that she could not control this situation to her satisfaction. 'Honestly, Andy some days it is like a stampede'. The same desperate young man even accessed a garage freezer and attempted to eat frozen meat.
With regard to the eating problem, how should I approach the problem? I realised very early on that the staff wanted me to 'sort these problems'. Was it all about ABC charts and functional assessment? Or should I attempt to understand the person by thinking carefully about the person's life. The latter started to make more sense to me. Somebody with an intellectual disability who lived in a large communal setting probably would have become obsessed with food. I then started to ask myself a basic question. What would it be like to be this person? The first basic rule was to spend time 'being' with the person and try to 'walk in their shoes'. I did not reject all aspects of behaviour analysis; I merely placed it in a compartment. Since this time I have met many gifted behaviour analysts who apply Positive Behaviour Supports in a systematic and sometimes a rather mechanistic manner. I think that there can be too much analysis at a distance and not enough time spent directly with individuals developing a basic understanding of the world from their perspective. PBS technology certainly has its place and can help to unravel some of the complexities of behaviour. But, for me it is a framework rather than a rigid methodology.
My second basic rule evolved very early on in my career. It became more apparent to me that the people I was supposed to support tended to be placed in 'analytic goldfish bowls'. Carers who were a cause of many episodes of challenging behaviour (mostly inadvertently) seemed to have little insight at times how much their behaviour impacted on others. More worryingly most of my information from files and so called 'incident forms' came from these people. It was not unusual that the most negatively vocal individuals had poor relationships with the service user in question. In many cases these people had real difficulties in taking the service user perspective. Even more concerning was the power exerted by 'keyworkers'. I began to notice that I was starting to 'view staff as sometimes part of the problem'. This could be reframed very easily in a positive manner, if staff could be part of the problem they could also be part of the solution.
Another major learning experience for me was that communal care is not for everyone. So many times I would be asked to fix behavioural difficulties and tried to ignore the fact that these individuals lived with individuals with similar difficulties. As an analogy, if you have a problem with your weight, will you learn to control your weight living with other people with similar problems? Putting it more bluntly do distressed people improve by living with others who are similarly distressed? I still witnessed traumatised individuals herded together with other people with issues. My third rule involves understanding that crowded environments do not lead to individual supports. People who have their own supported areas and ideally their own front door have fewer difficulties.
The use of drugs to control behaviour is still at epidemic levels in many care environments, even though the evidence for their use is very scant indeed. One of my basics rules is that we cannot support people who challenge and ignore the over medication of this population. For me the rule is clear cut, drugs administered to individuals are often requested by stressed carers. So let us teach these individuals to make fewer of these requests. Even if became angry or agitated on a weekly basis; I would not find it acceptable to be placed on medication. An eminent psychiatrist in the UK used to say to me, 'look my toolkit has only a few hammers and remember if all you have is a hammer then, everything becomes a nail' Medication still has a place but, in reality it should be limited. I think we have the ability to make medication the exception rather than the rule to manage behaviours in many services. I learned that challenging the use of medication increasingly is a role for psychologists. The big learning point for me is that working in a multidisciplinary manner is not the same as agreeing all of the time.
Throwing more and more staff into challenging situations can also be very detrimental. In the last 10 years I have worked with many individuals who are supported by large staff teams. In the bad old days of the institutions these were referred to as 'specials'. I always respect the view that people need to be kept safe, but, I do feel very strongly that this approach to safety does not empower service users. In addition, these types of schemes in my view can actually reduce staff confidence and to some extent reduces their ability to take calculated and normal everyday risks. That is, they feel that they need high levels of staff support to take risks. My last golden rule involves the development of risk taking cultures. The mantra 'take a risk every day' is my repetitive advice. We learn through experience. A good term from cognitive psychology is 'crystal ball gazing'. Staff teams will sometimes develop a culture where they resist risk taking. When a new activity is suggested it is usually followed by armchair predictions from staff. That is 'I think that would not work' or 'bad things will happen if we try 'X' or 'Y'.
I also strongly believe that one of the acid tests of valuing people is they way we treat people in stressful situations. Cultures that support people in a person centred way develop a positive attitude to crisis management. There is an acceptance that crises will happen from time to time. Understanding the reasons for these crises is part of the learning process. Despite what we think, things do not happen completely 'out of the blue'. Even if we understand why the individual behaves in the way he or she does we may not be able to prevent all incidents of challenging behaviours. In these circumstances people need to 'Ride out the storm'. This can be scary for people and practical support is often required. But, the storm analogy is clear. We cannot change bad weather but we can learn to adapt to it.
Even when we ride out storms it is useful remember that the people we support often have histories of abuse and trauma. My colleague David Pitonyak provides useful insights into trauma. It is important to understand that if we view someone as traumatised it should influence how we manage and support them. Clustering distressed individuals together just increases trauma. I very routinely spend time with people who are in single occupancy services People have more control over their lives and this does seem to help a great deal. Consider this, how many well meaning professionals would you let tell you what you need in your own house? You would show them the front door. Sharing with others often loses power for individuals.
Throughout my career I have been involved in the development of a low arousal approach. This involves a low key response from carers to manage challenging behaviours. In essence it can be reduced to one very basic idea. Be tolerant and respectful of the person and avoid punitive responses to challenging behaviours. This is an easy principle to state but, very difficult to apply in practice. I am often reminded of the old saying 'you can take a horse to water, but, you cannot make it drink'. I believe passionately that our job is to support an empower people and this involves self reflection, understanding and tolerance. It is not about 'us' it is about 'them'.
Andrew McDonnell,
Director. July 2009
|