As a learning and development company that delivers training programs, we are often challenged, and rightly so, to explain the apparent incongruence that come from teaching something that we are inherently trying to avoid i.e., Restrictive Physical Intervention.
In the Mandt System approach we promote and teach a ‘gradual and graded’ system of alternatives to restraint, that represent over 80% of the full program content. We do not promote restraint, but rather challenge all of ourselves and partners to reduce and wherever possible eliminate the use of restraint. We understand that in any setting where issues of violence and aggression may come into play, staff have a duty to keep safe those they serve and also a right to keep themselves safe. Key to the Mandt System teaching of Physical Intervention is this ‘mechanism of safety’.
First of all, we consider that the right to safety is equal between staff and those served, one does not trump the other. Secondly any physical intervention used, has to be considered in the context of the relationship and history of the persons concerned. For this reason, we do not teach techniques that cause pain, take people of balance or potentially traumatize or re-traumatize individuals. Techniques are taught to be applied for a maximum of 3 minutes and disengagement from any technique is a key measure in the certification process.
In an ideal world we would always be able to co-manage escalation of crisis and aggression with no need to intervene to maintain safety. In our current ‘less than ideal’ world we commit to a continual drive toward the ideal whilst ensuring that all and any safety responses are managed with a view to legal and ethical defendability and defensibility. We believe in the Mandt System and have seen through the implementation of the program by our partners that the vast majority to restraint situations and circumstances can be prevented, de-escalated and avoided in 99% of cases.
We are currently working on the final 1%.
Simon Kemp – CEO
