Petri J C M Embregts1, Annemarieke Negenman1,2, Jolanda M Habraken1, Marike E de Boer3, Brenda J M Frederiks4, Cees M P M Hertogh3. 1. Tranzo, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 2. Dichterbij Innovation and Science, Gennep, The Netherlands. 3. Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to incompatibilities in communication, it is key that family members and support staff can take the perspective of people with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities (ID) whilst putting aside their own perspectives. METHOD: Ten vignettes describing types of restraint interventions (RIs) were presented to 20 unique pairs of support staff and family members related to individuals with moderate to profound ID. RESULTS: In taking their own perspective, more than half of the support staff and family members perceived all RIs as involuntary and severe. In contrast, when asked to put themselves in the position of the client/family member, only three RIs were considered involuntary by a majority of support staff and family members. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that support staff and family members can take into account the perspective of people with moderate to profound ID in the evaluation and consideration of involuntary care.
BACKGROUND: Due to incompatibilities in communication, it is key that family members and support staff can take the perspective of people with moderate to profound intellectual disabilities (ID) whilst putting aside their own perspectives. METHOD: Ten vignettes describing types of restraint interventions (RIs) were presented to 20 unique pairs of support staff and family members related to individuals with moderate to profound ID. RESULTS: In taking their own perspective, more than half of the support staff and family members perceived all RIs as involuntary and severe. In contrast, when asked to put themselves in the position of the client/family member, only three RIs were considered involuntary by a majority of support staff and family members. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that support staff and family members can take into account the perspective of people with moderate to profound ID in the evaluation and consideration of involuntary care.