Edexcel Centre & ISO 9001: 2008
We are a Specialist Provider in the field of Conflict Management with specific expertise and competence in the field of Occupational Physical Skill development, construction, analysis, assessment and delivery, which is quality managed in line with the ISO 9001: 2008 standard.
In addition, we are also an Approved Edexcel Centre for the delivery of BTEC Qualifications and we have written specific Customised BTEC Awards in Physical Restraint Practice, Instruction and Coaching.
Our aim is to provide training and consultancy that reduces risk whilst also reducing liability. To do this we provide services that are:
- legally accurate
- include a risk assessment approach to risk identification
- have a hierarchical methodology of control
- include training needs analysis
- provide practical solutions for front-line staff
- are supported by formal documentation
- are reviewed and audited
- used as an active feedback resource by the commissioning organisation
All of the training that will be delivered is subject to on-going legal research to ensure that we provide training that is legally accurate and compliant with UK statute including Human Rights Legislation and Strasbourg case law as well as specific Children’s primary and secondary legislation, and where it is appropriate and lawfully correct, relevant codes of professional practice.
All training is carried out in line with suitably constructed risk assessments and current health and safety legislation and regulations. This provision also allows us the ability to provide active feedback into the management system highlighting any areas that may require immediate attention or review and/or corrective action to minimise the risk of accidents and injuries occurring.
In addition, the risk assessment approach towards training uses hierarchical approaches to risk control as identified by various health and safety modules. For example, when developing restraint programmes we will utilise the hierarchical response to manual handling as laid down by the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992. By doing this we have been able to identify other practical options for using physical restraint such as containing a violent subject by the temporary locking of doors. In one NHS Trust, this control option is supported by a documented risk assessment which has led to the issuing of a specific policy from the board which staff are trained to. As staff have an input from the start in this process they use the control option possibly more responsibly than if it had been imposed upon them. This approach has also been adopted in other areas such as searching.
Our restraint-training programme is compliant with the guidance contained in the Manual Handling Regulations aimed at reducing the risk of direct or cumulative injury in staff who are expected to use physical restraint.
Training Needs Analysis (TNA)
When constructing training needs analysis’ we take into consideration the principle that the people we train will already have varying degrees of skill and knowledge, which will vary from person to person. Therefore, we look at what they are required to do, what they can already do and finally the need for training to put into place the skills that are missing.
This is an important factor to consider when developing physical skills training programmes. Coaching research illustrates a number of issues that should be taken into consideration when designing and developing physical skills programmes. One human factor that must be taken into consideration is the natural ability of staff and the other is the natural ability of those persons who may attack staff or who staff will be expected to restrain. For example, social care staff, who may have joined the organisation from a caring perspective, may not have the physical ability (or indeed the personal motivation) to undertake complex physical skills training, or indeed apply what they have learnt in situations of heightened pressure and distress. Therefore, the training needs analysis needs to reflect that in the type of skills that staff can achieve and which should be taught to achieve the desired outcome.
The training needs analysis, however, is not done in isolation but in line with a risk assessment as training may not in itself be the best practical way of achieving the same control factor with less risk.
We also provide specific policies in relation to violence at work and various specific supplementary policies and guidance documentation to support and underpin any training provided which can be implemented in specific and/or specialised areas by the commissioning organisation. Examples are policies on physical restraint, containment, the intervention involving the use of force with children and young people and lone working. In addition, we can provide violence at work risk assessment documentation specifically designed for management to proactively and systematically identify staff who are at risk from violence in their respective departments, assess the risk of violence to them and decide what control measures are required.
We use audits as a structured process of gathering information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management system. The audit helps us review and modify the risk management process making corrective actions where necessary to improve safety by reducing risk.
By continually developing, reviewing, monitoring, auditing what we do we have the unique ability to be able to develop our range of physical skills and techniques to meet the wide range of end-user and client needs within a structured and accountable framework of risk and technical analysis.
The benefit to clients is that we can devise and modify physical skills to best suit the individual whilst taking into consideration all of the local compound factors such as environment, natural ability (or lack of), and third parties.
By using structured course documentation we can provide active feedback to the organisation about possible incident/accident trends. One key area is in under-reporting and the feedback from the training can be used to highlight these areas, and, possibly, more importantly, the underpinning reasons why under-reporting is occurring. Another key area that is identifiable by the process is where mistakes are being made or where risks are being taken by staff in an attempt to make the system work. A typical example of this is where staff have had a training system of intervention imposed upon them through organizational compliance with an independent code of practice. Compliance with such codes will be designed to reduce risk, however, due to operational difficulties in applying the principles of the code (i.e. the control method was impracticable) staff are left feeling unsupported and isolated by having to use a system that doesn’t work.
By providing active monitoring back into the organisation’s risk management system the facility is there to formally identify and address highlighted areas of risk and apply practical corrective measures that actually work as opposed to being reactive and responding to incidents that have or are happening and then applying control methods that are operationally impracticable.
Effects and Causal Factor Analysis (ECFA)
We use Effects and Causal Factor Analysis (ECFA) to identify why incidents and accidents occur and also to identify any foreseeable systematic or causal factors that may contribute to risk. Individual errors are seldom errors in isolation but are more likely compounded by more general causes, i.e. unsafe conditions, lack of adequate staffing and lack of management control. By using ECFA analysis methodology we can help organisations and their management to identify and apply correct control measures, including lawfully correct policy and guidance procedure, safe working practices and emergency contingency planning as well as specifically developed training that has a value to staff in terms of its effectiveness and appropriateness in an operational application.
This combined with our specific risk assessment and technique analysis assists us in assisting organisations and staff in developing specific skills and procedures that actually work.
When delivering a training programme we need to accept that what we start with will change in time as it is modified and corrected by the positive active feedback process. If this is acceptable then when considering at what stage training should be delivered there are two basic options:
- Undertake a full risk assessment and training needs analysis supported by independent audits to identify training needs, aims, objectives and methods. Then deliver the training, monitor it for effectiveness and feed the information back into each stage of the process to further correct the training as a risk control measure and also to construct appropriate and effective supporting policy and procedure.
- Begin the training process basing training on risk assessed and training needs analysis models already in use and from there feed information back into the organisation to further correct the training as a risk control measure and also to construct appropriate and effective supporting policy and procedure.
Although option 1 is the ideal model for implementation the drawbacks of option 1 is the longer timescale for the implementation of training delivery. This means that there will be a ‘dead period’ in-between the undertaking of the initial risk assessment, it’s analysis and the identification of training aims and objectives. In addition, organisations may choose to wait until the board has agreed on a policy before training can commence. All these delays can result in untrained staff being exposed to risks over an extended period of time without adequate training.
Option 2 allows us to utilise training that has already had risk assessments and training needs analyses done, and where aims and objectives are clearly set. This means training can commence almost immediately so staff are not exposed to a ‘dead period’ whilst waiting for the various stages to be completed. In addition, feedback from the training will have a bearing on policy and procedure which can follow on from the training delivery and which, if constructed properly, will have a greater bearing on staff ownership as they will have had a part in its construction based on the feedback they provide from the training.
Model for our Training & Development
By enabling staff with the skill and ability to “do the job” and by matching the skills required to the abilities and motivations of the employee we can increase confidence, competence and motivation. In addition by providing the employer with clearly defined objectives for staff linked to the organisations objectives (by providing employees with suitable and sufficient policy and procedure containing well-defined tasks and responsibilities) with the opportunity for staff to contribute ideas and feedback via the training and audit process we can improve the job design in conjunction with improved management support and more appropriate and effective training for staff, proper hazard control and improved support for staff. By doing this we will improve employee/employer relationships and a reduction in the organisational factors that lead to work-related stress.
NFPS Ltd possesses £10,000,000.00 of Public Liability and Indemnity Insurance Cover and Employers Liability Insurance Cover specifically for the activity of occupational physical intervention and disengagement training.