NFPS Ltd will not be seeking accreditation under the new PI accreditation scheme that is due to come into effect in April 2020

NFPS Ltd will not be seeking accreditation under the new PI accreditation scheme that is due to come into effect in April 2020.

We were hoping that a second option to attain accreditation through UKAS would be available, but due to the restrictions that will be imposed on any agency seeking to become a UKAS accredited centre for the delivery of the new minimum standards, that option is now not on the table.

This has now left only one route to accreditation, which will be through BILD (The British Institute of Learning Disabilities) should they become a UKAS Centre.

The decision not to pursue the new accreditation is due to our opinion that there is no actual benefit in being accredited through this scheme. One concern is that it doesn’t actually accredit the physical intervention techniques, despite being called a “training standards” accreditation scheme.

Another concern we have is that we cannot see how the accreditation process embraces or compliments other current statutory and common law legislation with regards to the use of force that applies to all UK citizens.

In addition, the insistence that certain techniques that may be necessary to reduce risk, which (if honestly recorded) will result in failure to achieve the accreditation, means that we cannot adopt the new accreditation scheme on health and safety grounds.

There are a number of other factors that we have taken into consideration in coming to this decision, such as: the financial implications, the restrictions on how training can be delivered, and the lack of clarity on certain areas such as the qualifications and experience of the individuals who may be tasked with inspection.

As a result, NFPS Ltd will not be seeking to become accredited under the new scheme.

4.7/5 (10 Reviews)

11 thoughts on “NFPS Ltd will not be seeking accreditation under the new PI accreditation scheme that is due to come into effect in April 2020”

  1. We as a company at Basis Training are fully behind you Mark and also will not be going down the route in April 2020. It just seems to me that all this is going to do is try to get rid of the really good companies that have been delivering physical intervention training over many years by pricing them out of the market. I just wait to see when unfortunately someone gets seriously injured or even killed how BILD & UKAS mount a defence in law considering their stance on certain aspects of physical intervention to keep delegates safe. Well done Mark for standing your ground and standing up for otrhers like us.

    • Hi John
      Thank you for your comment and kind words.
      As I said to a lot of people, I just can’t agree to something that I can’t promote with any degree of integrity.
      Speak soon.
      Mark

  2. Hi Mark.
    Thanks for letting us know the NFPS standpoint on this. It’s unfortunate things have turned out this way, but given your explanation I’d say you have been left with no other option.
    To be honest, I’m actually kind of pleased you’re standing your ground and taking a principled stance on this. Whilst I can appreciate the value in having a national accreditation system for our specialty (something we have all waited far too long for), I too have major concerns around the restrictions to be placed on the use of lawful techniques that are required in extremis. Placing limits on what can be taught and used, whilst declining to accredit the actual techniques delivered is just plain wrong. It just says “We’ll tell you what you can’t do, but not what you can”, which is not what I’m looking for in an accreditation body.
    I think you also make valid points about the fees and inspection process.
    Thanks for explaining your position. It’s pretty much where I’m at too.
    We live in interesting times!
    Paul
    Training Manager
    CARERS Training

    • Hi Paul,
      Thanks for your comment and for taking the time to do so and I appreciate your kind words and support on this.
      It isn’t a decision we have taken lightly, but I just can’t agree to something that I can’t promote with any degree of integrity.
      Mark

  3. Mark

    Thank you for explaining your position on this. It is good to see a training company that insists on providing legally underpinned ethical and appropriate training.

    John Titchen

  4. Hi Mark, thank you for articulating the NFPS stance on this issue and the clarity you and the other respondents are making on this accreditation scheme. Having heard one of the authors of the standards speak it does appear that the standards are not concerned with safe and ethical physical intervention techniques but are concerned with the theoretical component of a course. It therefore seems odd that they dictate what cannot be used but are not saying what can be used. I am not sure what the standards will achieve as it’s the practical application of techniques in a high risk situation that should be the issue as there is so much bad practice out there and misguided techniques. I am not sure what impact it will have on my business teaching nursing agency staff. But I do know many mental health trusts are also puzzled and require further clarity re the standards.

    Patrick Duggan
    MAV COnsultancy Ltd
    .

    • Hi Patrick
      You are most welcome.
      It will be interesting to see what happens as a lot of people do not seem happy with it, but I don’t think UKAS know that.
      Mark

  5. Hi Mark

    I’m sure many people will be following your sound advice as it has not steered us wrong yet.
    I also agree it will be interesting to see how they defend themselves when something goes wrong

  6. Mark
    As usual they appear to ignore the people who know the industry and have the experience in it. Never ceases to amaze me how people with little or no knowledge make the decisions that can affect people’s lives and livelihood.

    Ian

Leave a comment