Challenging behaviour, inpatient services and governance in England

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the current situation in relation to restrictive interventions, and some actions that could be taken to reduce them. The quality of care provided by inpatient services for people with intellectual disabilities has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years – from Winterbourne View in 2011 to Whorlton Hall in 2019, there has been increasing concern that admission to hospital does not always result in a good outcome for the patients. For some people, it has resulted in further deterioration in their physical and mental health, separation from families and supports and reduced probability of living as part of their community. This is in spite of knowledge and evidence of what good practice looks like. Design/methodology/approach This paper examines the extent to which inpatient services deliver good practice in treatment and care and, where this is not happening, the extent to which they are subject to effective governance. Findings People admitted to inpatient services can be at risk of poor-quality care and the overuse of restrictive interventions. There is guidance available that addresses what should be in place for them to receive high-quality care and treatment, and this clearly is available to many people. However, others can find themselves placed in increasingly restrictive environments and in circumstances where their human rights are at risk of being breached. There is increasing evidence that these services do not follow good practice guidance in terms of staff skills, development and implementation of effective care plans and governance arrangements that address these issues. Regulators, commissioners and managers could, and should, focus on these issues to ensure that the most vulnerable receive the care and treatment they need while in hospital. Originality/value Service providers are aware of the difficulties in developing alternative community services. This places even more importance on the need to ensure that care and treatment in hospital is of a good standard, and that the use of restrictive interventions is minimised. McGill et al. (this issue) describe the features of a capable environment and it may be that hospitals consider that the requirements are unlikely to be implemented effectively in a ward/unit setting. However, a shift of focus in doing this could result in a reduction in restrictive interventions and a better experience – potentially for both the staff and the patients. And families could have some reassurance that their relative was receiving the best quality care and treatment, and that their human rights were being upheld.