Training trainers in physical interventions: Why is the Studio 3 programme so different?
Staff training in physical interventions is an area where research is at best crude (allen, 2002). McDonnell, (2010) reviewed studies that involved staff training in physical interventions and questioned the poor quality of the research studies, with few articles containing adequate control groups and follow up periods. There have also been extensive debates worldwide about the safety of specific techniques such as prone restraint holds (Norwood, Ciccone, Kennedy, Faucher Moy, Allrich and Naiditch, 2011) and even a call for the official banning of the teaching of such holds (McDonnell, 2007) although the practicality of such an approach has been questioned (Leadbetter, 2007, Paterson 2007). In the UK the British Institute of Learning Disabilities has developed an accreditation system with a Code of Practice (Bild, 2002).
The attempt to regulate the industry is significant. However, this scheme does not accredit specific physical interventions and it is not mandatory. It is of note that the training of trainers is not well researched. There is one study that attempted to evaluate this in the literature (Van Den Pol, 1983). At the time of writing there are 24 accredited organisations. In addition here are several worldwide systems that describe their approaches to training trainers. It would appear from an examination of published information that training trainers standards are at best variable and at worse highly questionable. The author has been a practitioner in the field for 25 years. The following criterion outlines some of the areas of concern of many of these programmes and show the differences compared to the Studio 3 in house trainers programme.