Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The appropriateness of and justification for physical restraint procedures in intellectual disabilities settings is an emotive issue. It creates a number of ethical dilemmas for nursing staff. This article examines the views of service users and nursing staff from secure residential facilities where restraint is used frequently. Both groups were asked to rate three videotaped restraint procedures for their acceptability. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the acceptability ratings of the methods of restraint. Service users were then interviewed about their restraint experiences. They reported feeling very angry, sad, stressed and confused and not at all happy or relaxed when being restrained. Scores indicated that participants were significantly happier and less stressed after restraint than during restraint.

Keywords

restraint secure settings service user views

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arscott, K. , Dagnan, D. & Stenfert Kroese, B. (1999) `Assessing the Ability of People with a Learning Disability to Give Informed Consent to Treatment' , Psychological Medicine 29: 1367-75.

Baker, P. (2003) `Best Interest? Seeking the Views of Service Users' , in D. Allen (ed.) Ethical Approaches to Physical Intervention: Responding to Challenging Behaviour in People with Intellectual Disabilities, pp. 153-63. BILD: Kidderminster.

Clare, I.C.H. & Gudjonsson, G.H. (1993) `Interrogative Suggestibility, Confabulation and Acquiescence in People with Mild Learning Disabilities (Mental Handicap): Implications for Reliability during Police Interrogations', British Journal of Clinical Psychology 32: 295-301.

Cunningham, J. , Mcdonnell, A. , Easton, S. & Sturmey, P. (2003) `Social Validation Data on Three Methods of Physical Restraint: Views of Consumers, Staff and Students', Research in Developmental Disabilities 24 (4): 307-16.

Department Of Health (2001) Valuing People:A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century . Norwich: Stationery Office.

Flynn, M.C. (1986) `Adults Who Are Mentally Handicapped as Consumers: Issues and Guidelines for Interviewing', Journal of Mental Deficiency Research 30: 369-77.

Hawkins, S. , Allen, D. & Jenkins, R. (2005) `The Use of Restrictive Physical Interventions with People with Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour: The Experience of Service Users and Staff Members', Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 18: 19-34.

Hill, J. & Spreat, S. (1987) `Staff Injury Rates Associated with the Implementation of Contingent Restraint', Mental Retardation 25: 141-5.

Lowe, K. (1992) `Consumer-Based Service: What the Consumers Think' , Journal of Mental Subnormality 38: 6-14.

10.

Middlewick, J. (2000) `Use of Restraint Techniques on Acute Psychiatric Wards: Legal, Ethical and Professional Issues', Mental Health Care 3 (8): 270-3.

11.

Morrison, P.A. (1992) `The Meaning of Interpersonal Relationships in Nursing', Dissertation Abstracts International 53 (2-B): 772.

12.

Sequira, H. & Halstead, S. (2002) `Control and Restraint in the UK: Service User Perspectives', The British Journal of Forensic Practice 4: 9-18.

13.

Sigelman, C.K. & Budd, E.C. (1986) `Pictures as an Aid in Questioning Mentally Retarded Persons', Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin 29: 173-81.

14.

Stenfert Kroese, B. , Gillot, A. & Atkinson, V. (1998) `Consumers with Intellectual Disabilities as Service Evaluators', Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 11 (2): 116-28.

15.

Topping-Morris, B. (1995) `No Place for Restraint in Care', Nursing Standard 91 (15): 22-3.

16.

Witts, P. & Gibson, K.P. (1997) `Satisfaction with an Adult Learning Community Support Team', Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 10: 41-7.

Service users and staff from secure intellectual disability settings

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References