Decreasing restraint and seclusion in a midwest district: Best practices to support students in crisis.
Saved in:
| Title: | Decreasing restraint and seclusion in a midwest district: Best practices to support students in crisis. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Graves, Katherine A. (AUTHOR), Thorpe, Taylor (AUTHOR), Robertson, Christine (AUTHOR), Bauer, Leanne (AUTHOR), Rose, Chad A. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Educational & Child Psychology. Autumn2025, Vol. 49 Issue 2, p158-170. 13p. |
| Subjects: | Crisis intervention (Mental health services), School districts, Documentation, Capacity building, Self-control, Timeout method, Peer review of students, Best practices |
| Abstract: | Aim: This study aims to reduce instances of restraint and seclusion by implementing training and procedural updates aligned with federal recommendations and evaluating their impact on the frequency of restraint and seclusion practices in a school district. Method/Rationale: The participants included one district in a midwestern state. The intervention was implemented in three phases, and records of restraint and seclusion for the entire district were measured throughout the study. A new restraint and seclusion training program was first implemented in only one elementary school. In the next phase, it was implemented in all elementary schools, and a systematic documentation process was utilised. In the final phase, the intervention was adopted in all schools in the district, and a peer review team was adopted at the district level. Maintenance was collected for an additional year following the intervention. Findings: The results indicate a decrease in instances of restraint and seclusion following the final implementation of training, systematic documentation, and a peer review team. The district also maintained low levels of restraint and seclusion in the maintenance phase. Limitations: Limitations of this study include the implementation of the intervention in only one district. There was no control group to compare results with; however, regarding the serious nature of what is being measured (restraint and seclusion), is it unethical to not provide intervention if it is effective. Conclusions: Ultimately, schools are responsible for the safety and well-being of both students and staff. Implementing effective training, policy, and systematic documentation has been shown to reduce instances of R&S over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Educational & Child Psychology is the property of British Psychological Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
Be the first to leave a comment!
