Search

Background: The multi-disciplinarity of long-term care for people with intellectual disabilities makes organisations seek stability and predictability, complicating implementing innovations. Interventions to implement a method for reducing restrictive measures were analysed through the lens of Normalisation Process Theory to understand the social mechanisms at play. Methods: Process notes, collected during a trial in which a method to reduce restrictive measures was implemented, were analysed guided by implementation interventions defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. These interventions were mapped to social mechanisms of Normalisation Process Theory. Results: Implementation interventions were widely used in which clients’ perspectives were expressed (client-related-interventions), and consensus processes were held with care professionals. These interventions initiated NPT’s social mechanisms’ Coherence, Cognitive Participation and Collective Action. Conclusions: The emphasis on consensus and clients’ perspectives when methodically reducing restrictive measures reflects some unique implementation challenges in long-term intellectual disability care.

Policies limit the use of coercive measures as a measure of last resort to protect people from danger. Success of policies can only be determined by registering the use of coercive measures. The reliability of 57 standardized coercive measures was tested. In addition, implementation was investigated of improved registration in a residential care setting. This mixed methods study within a residential care organization for people with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands included 55 living units and 269 residents. Reliability of 57 standardized coercive measures was tested against other informants (colleague staff, trained outside observer) and results were validated by a panel of stakeholders. Second, the implementation of a mandatory routine registration system was investigated by comparing registration of coercive measures to personal files of 30 residents. Registration of coercive measures yielded reliable data for at least 25 out of 57 types of coercive measures. The second part of the study showed widely varying explanations of unreliable data by stakeholders, including knowledge and awareness of coercive measures of support staff and the influence of contextual factors on the encoding of coercive measures. After implementation, 46% of the coercive measures were registered in the registration system. Comprehensive registration of coercive measures by staff neither appeared feasible nor yielded reliable data. Clearly, multidisciplinary discussion among support staff and professionals is needed to decide whether care practices are restrictive or not. Further research should focus on how these considerations can lead to a reliable and meaningful registration.

Policies limit the use of coercive measures as a measure of last resort to protect people from danger. Success of policies can only be determined by registering the use of coercive measures. The reliability of 57 standardized coercive measures was tested. In addition, implementation was investigated of improved registration in a residential care setting. This mixed methods study within a residential care organization for people with intellectual disabilities in the Netherlands included 55 living units and 269 residents. Reliability of 57 standardized coercive measures was tested against other informants (colleague staff, trained outside observer) and results were validated by a panel of stakeholders. Second, the implementation of a mandatory routine registration system was investigated by comparing registration of coercive measures to personal files of 30 residents. Registration of coercive measures yielded reliable data for at least 25 out of 57 types of coercive measures. The second part of the study showed widely varying explanations of unreliable data by stakeholders, including knowledge and awareness of coercive measures of support staff and the influence of contextual factors on the encoding of coercive measures. After implementation, 46% of the coercive measures were registered in the registration system. Comprehensive registration of coercive measures by staff neither appeared feasible nor yielded reliable data. Clearly, multidisciplinary discussion among support staff and professionals is needed to decide whether care practices are restrictive or not. Further research should focus on how these considerations can lead to a reliable and meaningful registration.