ASSIGNMENT代写

纽卡斯尔代写Essay:挑战性

2017-04-25 00:27

具有挑战性的一系列智力残疾服务用户设置发现干预停止挑衅行为是物理约束的最常用的一种形式,对员工行为的途径探讨,隐居或化学克制镇静和抗精神病药物(爱默生et al,2000,P197)。原因是缺乏员工的知识和培训的证据为基础的行为方法,具有挑战性的行为和有限的资源。然而,在爱默生稍后的研究(2003,P115)建议在智力残疾的人表现出挑战性行为的百分之五十的人是经常接触约束。它提出,虽然有使用身体约束的程度上存在的各种文献,除了卫生部的指导原则似乎有有限的循证医学研究时,应使用物理约束。在身体约束那些具有挑战性的行为的原因进行系统回顾,伊万斯和菲茨杰拉德(2002,p735)确定的其他原因比自我伤害和伤害对方作为约束等原因,使补偿不足的员工工作时间表来完成的。Sullivan Marx等人的研究(1999,p342)发现身体约束不断使用取决于员工的技能组合。他们认为,消除约束将需要检查人员的人员和他们的技能和实施员工培训的替代做法。
纽卡斯尔代写Essay:挑战性
A study on staff approaches to challenging behaviour in a range of intellectual disability service user settings found that the most commonly used form of intervention to stop challenging behaviour was physical restraint, seclusion or chemical restraint in the form of sedation and anti-psychotic medication (Emerson et al, 2000, p197). The reason for this was lack staff knowledge and training on evidence based behavioural approaches for challenging behaviour and limited resources. Disturbingly, in a later study by Emerson (2003, p115) it was suggested that over fifty percent of people with intellectual disability who exhibit challenging behaviour are regularly exposed to restraint. It is proposed that although there are various literatures that exist on the extent of use of physical restraint, apart from the Department of Health guiding principles there appears to be limited evidence-based research on when physical restraint should be used.In a systematic review of the reasons for physically restraining those with challenging behaviours, Evans and FitzGerald (2002, p735) identified other reasons than self-harm and harm to other as reasons for restraint such as compensating for insufficient staff and enabling work schedules to be completed. A study by Sullivan-Marx et al (1999, p342) found that continual use of physical restraint depended on that staff’s skill mix. They argued that the elimination of restraint would require examination of staffing members and their skills and the implementation of staff training in alternative practices.