Programmaleider Verpleging, Verzorging en Ouderenzorg; bijzonder hoogleraar 'Verpleging en verzorging in de laatste levensfase', Vrije Universiteit / Amsterdam UMC
Publicatie
Publicatie datum
Applying restrictive measures in the care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities: attitudes of support staff and policy implications.
Dörenberg, V.E.T., Veer, A.J.E. de, Francke, A.L., Embregts, P.J.C.M., Nieuwenhuizen, M. van, Frederiks, B.J.M. Applying restrictive measures in the care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities: attitudes of support staff and policy implications. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities: 2018, 15(1), p. 26-35.
Download de PDF
Background
Research suggests that restrictive measures are widely used on adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. In the Netherlands, restrictive measures are defined as all measures that limit the freedom of a person. In most countries, legislation and policies that seek to reduce the use of restrictive measures focus on seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints.
Aim
The study aimed to investigate the extent to which restrictive practices are used in the care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities while also exploring the attitudes of support staff toward these interventions.
Methods
A survey study was done among a nationally representative Dutch research sample consisting of support staff. A structured questionnaire was completed by 195 staff members (response of 68.7%) working in settings providing care for people with intellectual disabilities. The measures generally used by staff members who work with adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities involved restricting the freedom of movement and so-called social restrictions (such as limiting the use of mobile phones).
Results
Nearly all respondents considered restrictive measures to be justified in the case of danger, physical aggression, or sexually abusive behavior (87.8–96.8%). Frequently mentioned reasons for using restrictive measures were averting or avoiding danger (90.4 and 83.0%, respectively) and calming the adolescent (63.8%).
Conclusion
Although seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints were generally considered most intrusive, staff members were aware that social restrictions could also be instrusive. The fact that current policies do not address these measures makes support staff question the lawfulness of their actions. As well as staff training to reduce the use of restrictive measures, rules, and legislation are also needed to clarify the options and limits to using such measures in the professional care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. (aut. ref.)
Research suggests that restrictive measures are widely used on adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. In the Netherlands, restrictive measures are defined as all measures that limit the freedom of a person. In most countries, legislation and policies that seek to reduce the use of restrictive measures focus on seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints.
Aim
The study aimed to investigate the extent to which restrictive practices are used in the care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities while also exploring the attitudes of support staff toward these interventions.
Methods
A survey study was done among a nationally representative Dutch research sample consisting of support staff. A structured questionnaire was completed by 195 staff members (response of 68.7%) working in settings providing care for people with intellectual disabilities. The measures generally used by staff members who work with adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities involved restricting the freedom of movement and so-called social restrictions (such as limiting the use of mobile phones).
Results
Nearly all respondents considered restrictive measures to be justified in the case of danger, physical aggression, or sexually abusive behavior (87.8–96.8%). Frequently mentioned reasons for using restrictive measures were averting or avoiding danger (90.4 and 83.0%, respectively) and calming the adolescent (63.8%).
Conclusion
Although seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints were generally considered most intrusive, staff members were aware that social restrictions could also be instrusive. The fact that current policies do not address these measures makes support staff question the lawfulness of their actions. As well as staff training to reduce the use of restrictive measures, rules, and legislation are also needed to clarify the options and limits to using such measures in the professional care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. (aut. ref.)
Background
Research suggests that restrictive measures are widely used on adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. In the Netherlands, restrictive measures are defined as all measures that limit the freedom of a person. In most countries, legislation and policies that seek to reduce the use of restrictive measures focus on seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints.
Aim
The study aimed to investigate the extent to which restrictive practices are used in the care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities while also exploring the attitudes of support staff toward these interventions.
Methods
A survey study was done among a nationally representative Dutch research sample consisting of support staff. A structured questionnaire was completed by 195 staff members (response of 68.7%) working in settings providing care for people with intellectual disabilities. The measures generally used by staff members who work with adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities involved restricting the freedom of movement and so-called social restrictions (such as limiting the use of mobile phones).
Results
Nearly all respondents considered restrictive measures to be justified in the case of danger, physical aggression, or sexually abusive behavior (87.8–96.8%). Frequently mentioned reasons for using restrictive measures were averting or avoiding danger (90.4 and 83.0%, respectively) and calming the adolescent (63.8%).
Conclusion
Although seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints were generally considered most intrusive, staff members were aware that social restrictions could also be instrusive. The fact that current policies do not address these measures makes support staff question the lawfulness of their actions. As well as staff training to reduce the use of restrictive measures, rules, and legislation are also needed to clarify the options and limits to using such measures in the professional care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. (aut. ref.)
Research suggests that restrictive measures are widely used on adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. In the Netherlands, restrictive measures are defined as all measures that limit the freedom of a person. In most countries, legislation and policies that seek to reduce the use of restrictive measures focus on seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints.
Aim
The study aimed to investigate the extent to which restrictive practices are used in the care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities while also exploring the attitudes of support staff toward these interventions.
Methods
A survey study was done among a nationally representative Dutch research sample consisting of support staff. A structured questionnaire was completed by 195 staff members (response of 68.7%) working in settings providing care for people with intellectual disabilities. The measures generally used by staff members who work with adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities involved restricting the freedom of movement and so-called social restrictions (such as limiting the use of mobile phones).
Results
Nearly all respondents considered restrictive measures to be justified in the case of danger, physical aggression, or sexually abusive behavior (87.8–96.8%). Frequently mentioned reasons for using restrictive measures were averting or avoiding danger (90.4 and 83.0%, respectively) and calming the adolescent (63.8%).
Conclusion
Although seclusion and mechanical and physical restraints were generally considered most intrusive, staff members were aware that social restrictions could also be instrusive. The fact that current policies do not address these measures makes support staff question the lawfulness of their actions. As well as staff training to reduce the use of restrictive measures, rules, and legislation are also needed to clarify the options and limits to using such measures in the professional care of adolescents with mild intellectual disabilities. (aut. ref.)
Gegevensverzameling