OBJECTIVES: To compare the nature and prevalence of use of procedures employed to treat and manage challenging behaviours across two approaches to providing community-based supported accommodation for people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and severe challenging behaviour: noncongregate settings where the minority of residents have challenging behaviour, and congregate settings where the majority of residents have challenging behaviour. SETTING: Community-based supported accommodation for people with ID and challenging behaviour. DESIGN: Longitudinal matched groups design. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The nature and prevalence of use of procedures employed to treat and manage challenging behaviours. Observed and reported severity of challenging behaviours. RESULTS: Both types of settings were associated with low prevalence of use of behavioural technologies for the reduction of challenging behaviour (less than 15% of participants). In contrast, high proportions of participant received antipsychotic medication in both noncongregate (56%) and congregate (80%) settings. Congregate settings were associated with the increased use of physical restraint as a reactive management strategy, with over half of participants being in receipt of physical restraint by two or more members of staff. DISCUSSION: Changes in reported and observed challenging behaviour over a 10-month period were slight. The use of evidence-based behavioural technologies for the reduction of challenging behaviour may have led to better outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the nature and prevalence of use of procedures employed to treat and manage challenging behaviours across two approaches to providing community-based supported accommodation for people with intellectual disabilities (ID) and severe challenging behaviour: noncongregate settings where the minority of residents have challenging behaviour, and congregate settings where the majority of residents have challenging behaviour. SETTING: Community-based supported accommodation for people with ID and challenging behaviour. DESIGN: Longitudinal matched groups design. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The nature and prevalence of use of procedures employed to treat and manage challenging behaviours. Observed and reported severity of challenging behaviours. RESULTS: Both types of settings were associated with low prevalence of use of behavioural technologies for the reduction of challenging behaviour (less than 15% of participants). In contrast, high proportions of participant received antipsychotic medication in both noncongregate (56%) and congregate (80%) settings. Congregate settings were associated with the increased use of physical restraint as a reactive management strategy, with over half of participants being in receipt of physical restraint by two or more members of staff. DISCUSSION: Changes in reported and observed challenging behaviour over a 10-month period were slight. The use of evidence-based behavioural technologies for the reduction of challenging behaviour may have led to better outcomes.
Authors: E Bruinsma; B J van den Hoofdakker; A P Groenman; P J Hoekstra; G M de Kuijper; M Klaver; A A de Bildt Journal: J Intellect Disabil Res Date: 2020-06-17
Authors: Alina Haines-Delmont; Anthony Tsang; Kirstine Szifris; Elaine Craig; Melanie Chapman; John Baker; Peter Baker; James Ridley; Michaela Thomson; Gary Bourlet; Beth Morrison; Joy Duxbury Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-09-28 Impact factor: 3.752