Challenging Behaviour - A Unified Approach PDF

Challenging behaviour:
a unified approach
Clinical and service guidelines for supporting people

with learning disabilities who are at risk of receiving
abusive or restrictive practices
College Report CR144

June 2007
Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Psychological

Society and Royal College of Speech and Language
Therapists
Approved by Central Executive Committee: March 2007
Due for review: 2012
Instead of responding to the person we typically react to the

behaviour
Most of what passes as assessment seems to be denial about the
mutuality of our common condition

Herb Lovett
Our job is not to fix people, but to design effective environments

Rob Horner
Difficult behaviours are messages which can tell us important things
about a person and the quality of his or her life

David Pitonyak
Contents
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Membership of working group
Acknowledgements
Foreword
Purpose of this report
Executive summary
Definitions and scope
12
Legislation
19
Focusing on the person
24
Capable environments
43
Creative commissioning
53
Future directions
56
References
60
Appendix: Good practice standards
66
Members of the working group
Dr Roger Banks (co-chair, editor) Royal College of Psychiatrists

Vice-President, Royal College of Psychiatrists, 17 Belgrave Square, London
SW1X 8PG, email: rbanks@rcpsych.ac.uk
Dr Alick Bush (co-chair, editor) British Psychological Society
Psychology Services, St Georges Community Health Centre, Winter Street,

Sheffield S3 7ND, email: Alick.Bush@SCT.NHS.UK
Dr Peter Baker British Psychological Society
Jill Bradshaw Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists
Dr Peter Carpenter Royal College of Psychiatrists
Professor Shoumitro Deb Royal College of Psychiatrists
Dr Theresa Joyce British Psychological Society
Professor Jim Mansell British Psychological Society
Dr Kiriakos Xenitidis Royal College of Psychiatrists
Acknowledgements
The working group acknowledges the help of the following people in
providing their views, advice and contributions: Members of the Learning
Disability Faculties of the British Psychological Society and the Royal College
of Psychiatrists, Vivien Cooper of the Challenging Behaviour Foundation and
Helen Dorr of the National Family Carer Network.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk
Foreword
I am very pleased to have been asked to write the foreword to this important
publication. One of the most important principles underpinning the Valuing
People White Paper is that all aspects of the policy apply to all people with
learning disabilities. Although we have made some good progress over the
past 5 years, there is evidence that people with the most complex needs
have not been benefiting as much as others from the changes in services,
ways of working and, most importantly, culture and attitudes. This was
neither the intention of the policy, nor is it a natural consequence of an
initiative fundamentally concerned with peoples rights as citizens and their
place in society. To the contrary, it is arguably the extent of our success
in meeting the needs of those who are most challenging to support that
should be the measure of our achievements. When I was managing services
in London in the late 1980s and early 1990s, one of the most rewarding
achievements was to see how people who had previously been written
off by services could achieve a positive place in society (including paid
employment) as a result of creative and courageous work by local staff (in
partnership with the Special Development Team from what is now the Tizard
Centre).
In this context, I particularly welcome the move to redefine the use
of the phrase challenging behaviour. The way in which that terminology
has become a label to describe either a diagnosis or a problem owned
by an individual has become an obstacle to the provision of appropriate
and effective support. The real challenge to abilities and capacities is to
those responsible for planning, commissioning, managing and providing
services for people with such complex needs. It has been our historic
failure to do that successfully that has resulted in people being excluded
from mainstream society and segregated into inappropriate services. The
acceptance of that ownership by ourselves rather than attributing the
outcome to the individuals behaviour is an important step towards achieving
better outcomes for all people.
Those outcomes could and should include participation in all aspects
of life and society. In order to do that, appropriate investment in skilled
health professionals is an essential but not the only component. If support
to people who challenge services is interpreted as only being the business of
the National Health Service, then achieving those wider goals and aspirations
will be impossible. Partnership between all people concerned with the lives
of people with learning disabilities and a shared vision to end the exclusion
from mainstream society of people who are described as challenging services
is the only effective way forward. I hope that this document is widely used
as an important contribution towards that aspiration.
Rob Greig
National Director: Learning Disabilities
Purpose of this report
This report is the result of a joint working group of the learning disability
faculties of the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of
Psychiatrists, in consultation with the Royal College of Speech and Language
Therapists.
Although there are many good examples of integrated and
multidisciplinary working between health professionals in the field of learning
disability, there are often, in the background, dynamics that tend towards
a splitting of professional groups and what then appear to be polarised and
antagonistic views and approaches. Yet, in the increasing joint working
between the professions, it is clear that we share more common ground than
we have differences and that our greatest effectiveness is when we work in
close and coordinated collaboration.
One of the main functions of learning disability teams in the UK is
to work with people with a learning disability whose behaviour presents a
challenge. Considerable resources of professional time, support, managerial
planning, strategic thinking and research have been committed over the
past two decades or more to the development of service responses to
the challenges presented by a significant number of people with learning
disabilities. Though effective responses are essentially multidisciplinary
and involve a wide range of individuals including carers and families, it has
tended to be the professions of clinical psychology and learning disability
psychiatry that have taken the lead in the development of theoretical and
clinical paradigms, models of service provision, planning, and research.
There is a growing interest in the concept of complexity in healthcare
and it can be seen that challenging behaviour presents a complex and
often paradoxical entity. The term was originally developed to describe the
interaction between the behaviour of a person with a learning disability and
the environment around them (see Chapter 3). Thus the term incorporates
a multiplicity of biological and psychological characteristics, predisposing,
precipitating and maintaining factors in the individual, the carers and the
environment that cannot be conceptualised in terms of linear or simple
cause-and-effect models. These multiple factors and the systems in
which they operate are all interrelated and cannot be readily analysed or
understood without reference to the others. New conceptual frameworks
that incorporate a dynamic, emergent, creative, and intuitive view of the
world must replace traditional reduce and resolve approaches to clinical
care and service organisation (Elsek & Greenhalgh, 2001).
One of the paradoxes in this complexity is the balancing of the need
for consistent standards of evidence-based practice with an analysis and
response to the unique circumstances and structures in existence for the
individual at a particular point in time.
Challenging behaviour: a unified approach
It is with these concepts in mind that this report has been produced,
with the following aims:
to revise and develop the interpretation of the term challenging

behaviour
to bring together relevant, available, evidence-based practice with a

consensus of clinical opinion and experience
to provide a unified framework for good practice in multidisciplinary

clinical and social interventions
to encourage the development of creative, flexible and effective

responses to individuals who present behavioural challenges
to provide guidance for service developers and commissioners
to inform and empower service users and their carers
to provide a set of standards of good practice against which service

provision can be benchmarked and audited
to promote the development of comprehensive and effective local

services and to reduce the number of individuals who are failed by the
current service provision
to provide a framework for training of health and social care

professionals and paid support staff and carers
to guide future research and development.

The unifying principle is to improve the quality of life of people whose
behaviour challenges services.
Within the constraints of time and practicality it has not been possible
to produce a report that addresses every aspect of challenging behaviour
across the whole spectrum of age and degree of learning disability. Our main
focus has been upon adults who are vulnerable to restrictive interventions
and abuse as a consequence of their limited capacity to make choices for
themselves about where they live or work, and how they are supported.
Specifically we have not addressed the needs of children, older people or
those who commit offences (forensic). We readily acknowledge that the
issues for these groups are integrally related to the groups covered in
this report; for example, behaviour that is severely challenging in adults
is likely to have its origins in childhood and early intervention to prevent
challenging careers is essential. There are, however, fundamental concepts
and principles that are applicable to all population groups and the services
that work with them. Not least, the core framework of creating capable
environments as a response to challenging behaviour is one that should be
universal in this field. The needs of particular groups may be the work of
further publications or of more localised responses to the guidance given in
this report.
The report was produced through the combined work of the members
of the working group and drew on a number of key publications already
in existence or in preparation at the time; we have also carried out a
wide-ranging consultation process (see Acknowledgements). Although the
disciplines of psychology and psychiatry were originally tasked to provide
the main guidance for the working group focus and process, we have also
sought the particular expertise of speech and language therapy, being
aware that there is a body of professional research in this area. Challenging
behaviour, however, requires a multidisciplinary and multi-agency approach
and therefore this report has also been produced with the intention that
it will be relevant and useful to a wide range of health and social care
professionals, family and paid carers, service providers and commissioners.

In order to achieve its aims, this document needs to be alive, active and
responsive. It is intended to provoke action as much as to inform, to
encourage local and national debate, analysis, review and response. It
aims to instigate further thought and guidance for the groups of people
with learning disabilities whose needs are not addressed specifically in this
report.
Finally, the report hopes to complement other publications and
guidance in this area and overall to further a reinvigorated and unified
approach to supporting people whose behaviour is experienced as
challenging. The importance of this is particularly emphasised following the
Healthcare Commission reports into services in Cornwall Partnership NHS
Trust (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, 2006) and Sutton
and Merton Primary Care Trust (Commission for Healthcare Audit and
Inspection, 2007).
Executive summary
This report concerns standards of clinical practice in supporting people with

learning disabilities who present behavioural challenges. It unites the clinical
theory and practice of health professions that have specific models for the
assessment and management of challenging behaviour. The fundamental
unifying principle is to improve the quality of life for people whose behaviour
challenges others.
The report focuses primarily on adults with moderate to severe learning
disabilities, although the broad principles outlined are applicable to children
and adults of all degrees of intellectual disability. People with learning
disabilities who present behavioural challenges are often marginalised,
stigmatised, disempowered and excluded from mainstream society.
The term challenging behaviour has become distorted from its original
meaning, and has come to be misused as a diagnostic label. The report
redefines challenging behaviour, building on past definitions and focusing
on the responses that the behaviour evokes in others, including those that
are punitive or restrictive.
There is a diversity of learning disability policy throughout the UK.
Despite shared commitments to support ordinary lives in the community and
to a range of generic and specialist supports, there has been a growth in the
provision of long-stay residential provision in the independent/private sector
and in the number of individuals in out-of-area placements.
Legislation
UK legislation varies between the different legislatures and is continually
changing. Clinicians must remain informed on how this affects their practice.
Professionals making treatment decisions for adults with learning disabilities
are guided both by the law and by professional guidelines. The development
and enactment of mental capacity legislation is clarifying the principle of best
interests and the process of decision-making for adults who lack capacity.
People who pose severe behavioural challenges are more likely to
be subjected to procedures which are directly or indirectly regulated by
legislation, i.e. detention and treatment under the provision of the Mental
Health Act 1983, informal detention of incapacitated people (Bournewood;
Department of Health 2006a), physical interventions, seclusion.
Focusing
on the individual
Challenging behaviour is socially constructed and is a product of an

interaction between the individual and their environment. Assessment and
intervention must therefore address the person, the environment and the
interaction between the two.
Behaviour can be described as challenging when it is of such an intensity,
frequency or duration as to threaten the quality of life and/or the physical
safety of the individual or others and is likely to lead to responses that are
restrictive, aversive or result in exclusion.
The person with a learning disability may be expressing unhappiness

in their current environment through their behaviour and clinicians may
be expected to provide interventions in environments that are inadequate
to meet the persons needs. A balance must be struck between best
practice and pragmatic measures to pre-empt a crisis that could have more
deleterious impact on the individual. In less than optimal circumstances,
the clinician may need to adopt a strong clinical advocacy role.
A comprehensive assessment should address: a functional assess
ment of behaviour, underlying medical and organic factors, psychological/
psychiatric factors, communication and social/environmental factors.
Detailed functional assessment and diagnosis are both integral features
of an assessment of challenging behaviour and should lead to a clear
formulation of the presenting problem.
Interventions should be delivered in a person-centred context and a
framework of positive behavioural support. They should include proactive
and reactive strategies. Interventions described include psychotherapy,
communication, positive programming, physical and/or medical and
psychopharmacological.
It is important that all interventions be routinely evaluated for their
effectiveness; those that are more thoroughly evaluated are more likely to
show a positive outcome.
Communication and feedback between professionals, carers and
service users, and the timely sharing of information is an essential
component at all stages of care.
Capable
environments
Challenging behaviour is more likely to be encountered in the family

home, in small scale community settings or in environments that are
poorly organised and unable to respond well to the needs of the person.
It has been shown that people who present behavioural challenges can
be effectively supported in ordinary housing in the community. When an
individuals living situation breaks down it is generally not the behaviour
but rather the service response that is the critical determinant.
There is often a mismatch between the level of need of people with
learning disabilities and the range of available service provision with the
capacity to work with behavioural challenges. As a result, out-of-area
placements are widely used as a solution, at the expense of local resource
development.
There may also be a mismatch between the expectations of
professional staff and of staff providing direct support to individuals in
community settings; the latter saying that professionals do not understand
the constraints under which they work and produce advice that they cannot
10
implement. Clinicians report that staff are unable to carry out necessary
assessments and interventions.
To improve services for people who present behavioural challenges
and to enable them to remain in their own homes and communities requires
the creation and support of capable environments. Competency-based
training and professional support is required for all carers together with the
promotion of creative solutions to the challenges faced.
The quality of staff support provided should be focused on enabling
the individual to engage in meaningful activity and relationships at home
and in the community. Staff should be skilled and well-organised to deliver
active support.
Creative
commissioning
Commissioners should have a clear basis on which to develop and select

competent providers. An alternative route to market development may be
through the establishment of personal budgets and independent brokerage.
They need to manage the market they have created in order to sustain
the capacity of local services to meet the needs of everyone with learning
disabilities. This involves encouraging service providers to cooperate, under
pinning service competence through training and service development and
reshaping specialised challenging behaviour services to support effective
local placements. There are not enough services that can provide skilled
support in each local area and commissioners therefore have an important
role in developing the new kinds of services that will be required.
Services need to be refashioned to give closer integration between
care managers, care standards inspectors and members of community
learning disability teams or specialist challenging behaviour teams. Staff
training and support to local services should be a core role of specialist
health professionals and clarity over outcomes and clearly defined service
provision should increase the quality of services available to people who
challenge services.
Commissioners will need to be aware of best practice in intervention,
the outcomes achieved by interventions (and these may be broader
than behavioural change) and the difficulties in predicting how long an
intervention will take, as intervention is complex and may involve many
different parties.
Future
directions
Future work needs to address the issues of challenging behaviour and early
intervention in children.
The service user perspective needs to be emphasised and it is hoped to
achieve this through the development of a charter outlining what standards
of service provision people should expect.
A set of good practice standards is provided against which local
services and stakeholders can audit and evaluate their current service
provision and to assist in service planning and development.
A number of other initiatives are suggested for joint professional
working, research, evaluation and audit.
11
Definitions and scope
This document is concerned with standards of clinical practice and how best
to support people with learning disabilities who also present challenging
behaviour. In practice both of these terms, challenging behaviour and
learning disability, are applied with wide variation and inconsistency and
often in ways that are idiosyncratic to service geography and structure,
professional backgrounds and theoretical perceptions.
People with learning disabilities do not constitute a uniform group.
Epidemiologically and diagnostically, the definitions of mental retardation in
the ICD10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (World Health
Organization) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM
IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) are generally used. In practice,
however, the eligibility criteria for access to services vary considerably
and do not adhere to consistent operational definitions. However, it is
generally accepted that the common criteria of learning disability centre
on significant impairment of intellectual and social functioning that occurs
before adulthood.
The focus of this report is primarily on adults with moderate to severe
learning disabilities. The rationale behind this is to focus the scope of the
guidance to those circumstances where it is likely that the individuals
themselves may be excluded from receiving other forms of intervention and
support aimed at ameliorating challenging behaviour.
This report also focuses on guidance to professionals and services.
It does not include the additional guidance that will be necessary for
work with forensic populations (where additional specific psychological
techniques would need to be included); or the additional guidance
necessary for working with people with significant depression, anxiety,
anger management difficulties etc., all of these would also require additional
guidance, much of which is now being dealt with within the National Institute
for Clinical Excellence frameworks. This is not to say that the guidance
regarding medication, behavioural intervention, environmental support
and commissioning is not relevant to these additional groups. Its focus,
however, remains on those people who are more likely to be excluded from
the broader range of psychological and psychiatric interventions.
We acknowledge that there will be specific issues of diagnosis,
aetiologies, treatment options, and legal frameworks for children and older
adults. However, we believe that there are fundamental principles, values
and guidance that are applicable across all groups who present behaviours
that are challenging.
We believe that it is also important to note that people with learning
disabilities who present challenging behaviours are often marginalised,
stigmatised, disempowered and excluded from mainstream society. They
suffer similar disadvantages to other groups who are discriminated against
12
in society for reasons of ethnic origin, religion or sexuality for example. It

is important to be particularly aware of those who are also from minority or
stigmatised groups and may be doubly disadvantaged.
Challenging behaviour is a term that was originally adopted from
use in the USA by The Association for Severe Handicaps (TASH), where it
had been introduced in order to transfer the demands for change from the
individual with severe behaviour problems to the organisation around them.
The challenge was to carers, services and professionals to find more effective
ways of understanding the origins and meaning of a persons behaviour
and to find creative ways of responding to this challenge in order that the
behaviour ceased to fulfil the same function and would therefore diminish.
The most widely used, formalised definition has been that of Emerson:
culturally abnormal behaviour of such an intensity, frequency or
duration that the physical safety of the person or others is likely to
be placed in serious jeopardy, or behaviour which is likely to seriously
limit use of, or result in the person being denied access to, ordinary
community facilities.
(Emerson, 1995)
All behaviour has meaning or function and does not occur in isolation. There
are likely to be a number of underlying causes of a behaviour that are a
challenge to others. As well as functional determinants, precipitants and
maintaining factors, aetiologies may include:
physical: discomfort, pain, malaise, physiological disturbance (e.g.

thyroid disorders)
mental illness: mood disorders, psychosis, anxiety, obsessive

compulsive disorders
neuropsychiatric disorders: epilepsy, Gilles de la Tourette syndrome,

attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dementia
pervasive developmental disorders: autism
phenotype-related behaviours: Prader-Willi syndrome, Lesch-Nyhan

syndrome, Williams syndrome
psychological trauma: reaction to abuse or loss
communication difficulties: hearing loss, unclear communication,

insufficient vocabulary or means of expression, difficulties
understanding communication of others.
Through attempts to define the term challenging behaviour more consistently
for the purposes of service provision, service development and research,
the emphasis has moved away from its origins as a socially determined
concept to a diagnostic entity. Attempts have been made to define
challenging behaviour in terms of the behavioural characteristics, aetiologies,
quantifiable frequencies or severities. As a result, the term in practice has
been increasingly used as a diagnostic label, a means of describing groups
of individuals or groups of behaviours. It has also been used to describe
specialist services or service elements and professional roles, with the result
that people with learning disabilities become labelled by association. The
temporal and situational elements of the term also seem to have been lost;
rather than challenging behaviour being a description of an interaction in
a certain place at a certain time, the term becomes diffuse (if one aspect
of a persons behaviour is challenging then all their abnormal behaviours
receive the same label) and lasting (once a challenging behaviour always a
challenging behaviour). The attribution for responsibility for the behaviour
and therefore for its change has unfortunately gravitated away from carers,
services and professionals back to the individual.
13
One of the reasons for the adoption of the term challenging behaviour
was to provide a reminder that severely problematic or socially unacceptable
behaviour should be seen as a challenge to services rather than a
manifestation of psychopathological processes. In order to respond to this
challenge, services need to promote positive behavioural development,
reduce the occurrence of damaging behaviour and maintain peoples access
to a decent quality of life despite continuing behavioural difficulties.
It is our belief that there needs to be a firm reaffirmation of the term in
its original context and a clear shift of emphasis back to the responsibilities
for change being with the systems around the individual. We believe that
challenging behaviour is a socially constructed and dynamic concept. In
order for an individuals behaviour to be viewed as challenging, a judgement
is made that this behaviour is dangerous, frightening, distressing or annoying
and that these feelings invoked in others are in some way intolerable or
overwhelming. The impact on others, and therefore the characteristics of the
observer(s) have to be incorporated in the application and understanding of
the term challenging behaviour.
We propose the adoption of a modified definition that builds on that
of Emerson:
Behaviour can be described as challenging when it is of such an intensity,
frequency or duration as to threaten the quality of life and/or the physical
safety of the individual or others and is likely to lead to responses that are
restrictive, aversive or result in exclusion.
Quality of life and physical safety of the person and those around
them is a focal concept of this definition. It has also moved from thinking
in terms of the qualitative aspects of the behaviour of the person, to
those of the responses of individuals and services. The actual nature of
the behaviours therefore should be defined separately, for example: selfinjury, assault, socially inappropriate behaviour. We believe that behaviour
should be regarded as challenging when responses that are neglectful,
socially and morally unacceptable, abusive or restrictive are being used to
manage it; particularly so when basic human rights are being contravened
(Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, 2006, 2007).
Thus the prevalence of challenging behaviour can be conceptualised
within such parameters as
number of individuals excluded from local services
number of individuals in out of area placements
number of individuals not receiving day services, employment

opportunities, education, respite or home support
service responses involving
seclusion
restraint
locked doors
abuse
clinical responses involving
inappropriate prescribing of drug treatments
punitive and aversive behavioural interventions
risk avoidance rather than risk management.

It is clear therefore that the label of challenging behaviour becomes less
appropriate once the consequences and the responses of others change to
14
being non-punitive, non-restrictive and socially enabling rather than restricting. The nature and even the severity and frequency of the behaviour may
remain unchanged and yet it ceases to be seen as challenging when carers,
professionals and services are able to respond in positive, inclusive and enabling ways. An analogy can be drawn with a chronic medical condition such
as insulin-dependent diabetes; the control of blood sugar and the avoidance
of the complications of the condition require daily and lifelong treatment with
insulin and appropriate adjustments to diet and lifestyle. While this treatment is available and able to be adhered to the individual can usually live
a normal life, however, in the absence of these daily supports the condition
represents a significant threat to their health, well-being and survival.
Scope
The underlying factors in an individuals behaviour that challenges others
may have a range of aetiologies and may be complex. The individuals on
whom they impact and the contexts in which they occur are also varied.
Family and paid carers are usually those who primarily have responsibility
for supporting the individual who presents challenges. The responsibility for
designing interventions and support packages has tended to be within health
services for people with learning disabilities and also within specialist groups
or individuals within those services. Clinical psychologists, psychiatrists,
speech and language therapists, learning disability nurses and occupational
therapists have been in the forefront of service provision and development.
There are many other individuals from different professional backgrounds
however who work with people who present challenges and have acquired
skills and experience in this area, for example psychotherapists, art
therapists, physiotherapists and social workers.
This document aims therefore to have relevance to all professionals
who work with people with learning disabilities, although it is written
primarily from the perspective of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists
and with a significant contribution from speech and language therapists.
Our process of consultation has endeavoured to incorporate a wider view,
although we accept that it is unlikely that we have been all-inclusive and
hope that this document will promote further discussion, research and
contributions to future revision.
The focus of the definition of challenging behaviour is on service and
systemic responses. This report will aim therefore, above all, to inform and
guide those who are policy makers and those who provide and commission
services for people with learning disabilities in the statutory, voluntary and
independent sectors. Our intention is that organisations that are charged
with purchasing, commissioning or regulating services will use the standards
outlined in the document in order to assess the appropriateness and quality
of the services for which they are responsible.
Context
UK
learning disability policy

The context of service provision for people with learning disabilities has
been changing. With the closure of large hospital institutions, the emphasis
for professional intervention has moved to a community, multidisciplinary
15
and multi-agency base, with an intent to utilise mainstream health services

wherever possible and with the lead for specialist learning disability services
coming from the local authority. Working with individuals who present
challenging behaviour has to take place in the context of their home, their
daily activities and support networks. These involve carers and supporters
from a variety of backgrounds and employing agencies. Although the NHS
long-stay hospital provision has almost disappeared, there has been a
growth in the provision of a wide variety of residential and long-stay care,
particularly in the independent sector. This growth may bring with it potential
compromises to the values and principles of enabling people with learning
disabilities to live ordinary, non-segregated lives.
Some of the biggest challenges have been in the sustained
development and provision of specialist services or service elements, and
in the training and support available to families, carers, advocates or nonspecialist professionals. When families want to continue to care for the
person at home, they are frequently faced with a lack of practical, financial,
specialist, responsive or flexible supports that would enable this to happen.
Too often the only real alternative is for the relative they are caring for to
leave the family home, whether or not they wish this to happen.
Supporting people who challenge services needs to be seen within
the current policy context, primarily national but also local. National policy
has also undergone changes within the past 20 years with the devolution,
in varying degrees, of responsibilities for health and social care provision to
national administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
England and Scotland have seen the launch and implementation of
high profile national strategies for people with a learning disability, Valuing
People (Department of Health, 2001) and The Same as You? (Scottish
Executive Health Department, 2000).
Valuing People aims to provide new opportunities for children and
adults with learning disabilities to live full and independent lives as part of
their local communities. It also recognises that one of the major issues for
learning disability services is the provision and commissioning of services for
those who present challenging behaviour.
The Same as You? emphasises that while challenging behaviour
services should not be separate from general provision for people with
learning disabilities, it is important to recognise the need for a range
of specialist clinical services and treatments to be available including
psychotherapy, cognitivebehavioural approaches and behaviour analysis;
the aim of the specialist services should be to support mainstream services
and to help people stay in their own homes as far as possible.
The Welsh Assembly Government responded to the report of an
advisory group on learning disability, Fulfilling the Promises (National
Assembly for Wales, 2001), by restating its commitment to the All Wales
Strategy of 1983 and its update in 1994. In August 2004 the Assembly
issued Section 17 Guidance on Service Principles and Service Responses for
Adults with Learning Disabilities. The principle for people with challenging
behaviour states that People with learning disabilities who present
challenging behaviour should receive evidenced-based care and treatment
appropriate to their needs in their home or as close as possible to their
home, irrespective of the severity of the level of challenge. The service
responses again emphasise the need for specialist expertise to support the
work of learning disability and mainstream services.
Although they highlight the importance of services for people who
show challenging behaviour and reaffirm commitment to their provision
16
and development, these strategies do not contribute anything new or

innovative in the field. Indeed, by highlighting challenging behaviour as a
separate entity, paradoxically they may have contributed further to a lack of
integration of understanding and approach, and an emphasis on symptoms
rather than cause. Too often challenging behaviour has become regarded as
synonymous with risk and thus services have become structured to reflect
a hierarchy of risk management or risk containment. This hierarchy often
ascends from the level of basic core skills within members of multidisciplinary
teams, through specialist practitioners, specialist teams, assessment and
treatment units up to low and medium secure units and forensic provision.
Service responses to challenging behaviour are often, therefore determined
primarily by the nature and availability of fixed resources and, again, the
challenge is located within the individual who is then judged against eligibility
or admission criteria for these services. Perversely, the nature and degree of
challenging behaviour may also become labelled in terms of the nature of the
service response e.g. he is a forensic problem, her challenging behaviour
can only be managed in a medium-secure unit, they need to be on the
challenging behaviour ward.
Challenging
behaviour policy
Following the publication of Facing the Challenge by the Kings Fund

(Blunden & Allen, 1987) and Meeting the Challenge (Allen et al, 1991) one
of the most influential drivers of strategic change has been the Mansell
Report, Services For People With Learning Disabilities And Challenging
Behaviour Or Mental Health Needs (Department of Health, 1993). More
recent learning disability strategies have not fully addressed the vital
connection between challenging behaviour and mental health, emphasising
instead issues of access to generic provision for all health needs;
challenging behaviour has remained, without clear direction, within the
specialist remit of learning disability services. Also lost is the charter for
people with learning disabilities who have challenging behaviour or mental
health needs contained in Appendix 4 of the Mansell Report (Department of
Health, 1993) which states that:
standards and charters applying to other people shall also apply to

people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour or mental
health needs
services will ensure that each person is treated as a full and valued
member of their community, with the same rights as everyone else
and with respect for their culture, ethnic origin and religion
services will be individually tailored, flexible and responsive to changes

in individual circumstances and delivered in the most appropriate local
situation
services will strive to enable people to live in ordinary homes and enjoy
access to services and facilities provided for the general community
services will be provided by appropriately trained, qualified and

experienced staff who will help the people they serve to develop fully
in all aspects of their lives
services will be delivered in the least restrictive manner capable of

responding to individual need
services will strive to continually improve, using the latest research to

provide the best treatment, care and support.
17
British Psychological Society:
clinical practice
guidelines
The British Psychological Society (2004) published guidance for clinical
psychologists who provide psychological interventions to people with learning
disabilities who also display behaviours that severely challenge services.
Although aimed at psychologists, and drawing largely on the evidencebase contained in the psychology literature, it was intended that other
professionals, service providers and purchasers may also find them helpful
in clarifying what to expect from psychologists. Many of the guidelines
contained in the document are equally applicable to other professionals and
they have provided the impetus for this collaborative report, which aims to
build on the evidence-base, by producing a consensus position statement on
best practice for those clinicians who provide services to this group of people.
The guidelines are not fully reproduced in this report but contain a more
extensive review of the evidence base with respect to positive behavioural
support and applied behavioural analysis. This report recommends that these
guidelines are adhered to as appropriate in clinical practice.
18
Legislation
England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales have differing legislation and this
legislation is in a continual process of change. All clinicians need to keep
themselves informed as to how current local legislation and related practice
guidelines affect their own practice. For the sake of brevity, this chapter
is based on legislation that covers England and Wales. Clinicians in other
jurisdictions will need to interpret the principles outlined in this section in
light of their own national legislative framework.
Consent
to treatment and best interests
Professionals deciding on the appropriate treatment for adults with

learning disabilities are guided by both the requirements of the law (and
supplementary codes of practice or guidance) and of professional practice
guidelines. The implementation of the Mental Capacity Act in 2007 and the
Code of Practice 2007 (Department for Constitutional Affairs, 2007) has
clarified the position in relation to decision-making on behalf of incapacitated
adults.
The law in relation to treatment is based on the principle that every
person being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what
shall be done with his own body (Per Cardozo [1914]). This principle
of autonomy is fundamental, whereby people have the right to refuse
treatment, even if others think it will benefit them. However, many
individuals with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour would not
be able to exercise such autonomy, as they might lack decision-making
capacity. Those who lack capacity have been defined as:
...a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time
he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter
because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the
mind or brain.
(Mental Capacity Act 2005)
The Mental Capacity Act has further defined incapacity as:

...a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable:
(a) to understand the information relevant to the decision
(b) to retain that information
(c) to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making
the decision, or
(d) to communicate his decision (whether by talking, using sign
language or any other means.) (Mental Capacity Act 2005).
In relation to decisions about treatment for mental disorder, the Mental

Health Act 1983 allows for treatment to be given for mental disorder (to
19
those detained) under part IV (sections 5664). The Mental Capacity

Act allows for the majority of other decisions to be made on behalf of an
incapacitated adult.
There is also a presumption of capacity, and anyone wishing to treat
a person has to prove lack of capacity before proceeding to treat without
consent. This places requirements on those treating individuals who present
challenging behaviour to assess capacity in relation to the decision that
needs to be made. There is a requirement that information is presented
in a way that is accessible to the person, and that simplified language,
visual aids or other communication methods should be used if appropriate.
Clinicians will therefore have to present information about medication or
psychological interventions in a way which is accessible to the individual,
assess whether or not they have understood and can remember it and
whether they have used the information to arrive at a decision. The decision
should be voluntary.
If the person does not have capacity to consent, then any treatment
must be in their best interests:
(a) the persons past and present wishes and feelings (and, in
particular, any relevant written statement made by him when he had
capacity)
(b) the beliefs and values that would be likely to influence his decision
if he had capacity, and
(c) the other factors that he would be likely to consider if he were
able to do so. (Mental Capacity Act 2005)
The best interests provisions also place an obligation on the clinician to
consult those involved in the care of the person (which can be both family
and carers), anyone appointed by the court as a deputy for the person,
and anyone appointed by the person themselves. This encompasses more
than medical best interests, and also considers emotional, social and
welfare issues. They should also be the least restrictive alternative for the
person; this can be particularly relevant for people who present behavioural
challenges, as it is recognised that they may be placed in more restrictive
environments and may have a more restricted range of opportunities
available to them. The Code of Practice to the Mental Capacity Act 2007
provides more guidance on the issue of best interests.
Informal
detention of incapacitated people
Another significant issue is the extent to which any placement might be

sufficiently restrictive that it could be considered to amount to a deprivation
of liberty for that individual. The case law on this issue derives from a ruling
in the European Court of Human Rights, known as the Bournewood judgment
(HL v. United Kingdom). This highlighted that detained patients have an
automatic right of review of their detention, those who are not detained
but unable to exercise their right to leave however do not have the same
protection. The Mental Capacity Act is being amended to ensure that these
rights are clear in law.
There are also implications for the treatment of incapacitated people
in relation to the nature of the services in which they are placed, in that
services that are unnecessarily restrictive of an individuals freedom could be
20
in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights; this could include

practices such as locking doors and restrictive care practices. It is likely
that people whose behaviour is challenging could be especially susceptible
to such regimes, and professionals may also need to pay attention to these
issues when considering placements or, indeed, providing clinical input to
such placements.
Physical
interventions
It is suggested that approximately half of people with learning disabilities

whose behaviour is challenging will have physical interventions used on them
at some point in their lives (Emerson, 2003). In the absence of a lawful
reason, using force, or threatening to use force, could give rise to a criminal
charge, as could locking someone in their room. The Mental Capacity Act
defines the unlawfulness, and the appropriate penalties for actions of illtreatment or neglect.
A physical intervention in relation to challenging behaviour is described
by the British Institute for Learning Disabilities (Harris et al, 1996) as
A method of responding to the challenging behaviour of people with
learning disability and/or autism which involves some degree of direct
physical force which limits or restricts the movement or mobility of the
person concerned.
They define three types of physical intervention
direct physical contact between a member of staff and a service

user: for example holding a persons arms and legs to stop them
attacking someone
the use of barriers such as locked doors to limit freedom of

movement: for example placing door catches or bolts beyond the reach
of service users
materials or equipment that restricts or prevents movement: for

example placing splints on a persons arms to restrict movement.
It is recognised that there may be occasions where the risk posed by an
individuals behaviour necessitates the use of physical intervention as a
reactive management strategy. Those individuals who possess capacity
should be fully involved in planning all aspects of their care. In situations
where the individual lacks capacity a care plan should be constructed which
is considered to be in the best interests of that person and which utilises the
least restrictive alternatives.
Clinicians working with individuals with learning disabilities whose
behaviour is challenging are less likely to be required to participate in
physical interventions involving direct physical contact, but may be required
to advise on their use. They may also be involved in risk assessment
regarding restricting an individuals freedom of movement and may be
involved in interventions with individuals who self-injure where restraint is
being considered as an option. The importance of acting in the best interests
of the person and of ensuring that the other, less intrusive means are tried
before resorting to physical interventions has been emphasised in a number
of reports (British Psychological Society, 2004; National Patient Safety
Agency 2004; Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2005).
The Department of Health/Department for Education and Skills
guidance (2002) outlines the requirements when physical intervention are
planned and these include
21
agreement by the multidisciplinary team, including consultation with

others as appropriate
put in writing, together with the behavioural plan (they should never
be the only plan for managing behaviour)
be supervised by appropriately trained staff
be recorded, so that the circumstances of any physical intervention
and methods used can be monitored.
This guidance also emphasises that the physical interventions should
be used as infrequently as possible
be in the best interests of the service user
be part of a broader treatment strategy
not cause injury
maintain the persons dignity.

In addition, The Mental Health Act Code of Practice (Department of Health
& Welsh Office, 1999) provides guidance for the use of restraint within
in-patient mental health settings. This contains similar recommendations
in as much as the purpose of restraint is for an emergency response to
end or reduce danger; should be individually planned; only used as a
last resort; and should use the minimum amount of force for only as long
as is necessary. The code recognises that situations may arise whereby
non-compulsory detained individuals might need to be restrained as an
emergency. If this occurs, especially on a repeated basis, consideration
should be given to whether formal detention under the Mental Health Act is
appropriate.
The Mental Capacity Act provides protection to carers from liability
in regard to certain acts performed in connection with the personal care,
healthcare and treatment of a person lacking capacity. The use of restraint
is permitted only under specific circumstances and carers will be provided
with protection from liability providing they believe that the restraint was
necessary in order to prevent harm to the person lacking capacity and that
the restraint was proportionate. This section does not allow the restraint
in order to prevent harm coming to another person; Jones (2005) noted,
however, that the common law could allow for the prevention of assault
on another. Clinicians should be guided by the Department of Health/
Department for Education and Skills guidance (2002) and the Mental
Capacity Act Code of Practice.
Seclusion
The Mental Health Act Code of Practice (1999) also contains guidance on the
use of seclusion, defining seclusion as supervised confinement in a room,
which may be locked. The Code states that it should be used as a last resort
and for the shortest period of time and not be used as a punishment or
threat, as part of a treatment programme, because of shortage of staff or
where there is any risk of suicide or self-harm.
The Department of Health/Department for Education and Skills
guidance (2002) clearly states that the use of seclusion outside the Mental
Health Act should only be considered in exceptional circumstances and
should always be proportional to the risk presented. The guidance also
makes a useful distinction between seclusion and withdrawal, whereby
withdrawal is removal of a person from a situation that causes anxiety
22
or distress to a location where they can be continuously observed and

supported until they are ready to resume their usual activities. Seclusion
should similarly be considered to be a physical intervention, and its use
outside the Mental Health Act should not occur.
Placement
breakdown
Section 35 of the Mental Capacity Act provides for the appointment of an

independent mental capacity advocate if there is to be a change in the
provision of accommodation to a service user. These provisions apply if
there is no one else available to consult. The change in accommodation
must be for a specified length of time, and does not apply if the person is
accommodated under the provisions of the Mental Health Act.
23
Focusing on the person
The term challenging behaviour is socially constructed. It represents the

interaction of both individual and environmental factors, and the relationship
between them. Any assessment and intervention for challenging behaviour
must include these three elements (see Fig. 1).
Individual factors include
degree and nature of learning disability
sensory or motor disabilities
mental health problems
physical problems, including pain and/or discomfort
communication difficulties, personal history of relationships and

experiences.
Environmental factors will include the characteristics of services:
number of staff
training and experience of staff
consistency of staff provision and approach
the working relationship with the client
working relationship between staff
quality of the material environment
opportunities available
ability of the service to understand and respond to unique needs of

individuals
Person
Behaviours
Environment
Fig. 1 The relationship between the elements of assessment and

intervention in challenging behaviour.
A poor fit between the individuals needs and their environment may result
in limited opportunities to
gain social attention
escape from or avoid excessive demands
24
gain access to preferred activities or objects

gain alternative forms of sensory feedback
reduce arousal and anxiety by other means
exert choice or control over environment
understand and communicate with the person.
Individual risk factors (such as communication difficulties or a history of

abuse) are widespread among people with learning disabilities; environmental
risk factors (such as poorly organised and inadequately trained staff) are
widespread among services. To design effective supports for people who
challenge services, these factors need to be considered on an individual basis
within a context that is based on strong ethical standards and values.
Where individuals are cared for in environments that do not respond
appropriately to their needs, challenging behaviours are likely to develop
and then remain in the persons repertoire. Many people encountered by
clinicians who have been asked to intervene in their challenging behaviour
are unhappy in their current environment and are powerless to do anything
about it other than expressing their plight through their behaviour. Clinicians
need to be aware that they may be expected to provide interventions in
environments that are inadequate to meet the persons needs. They must
strike a balance between best practice and pragmatic measures to pre-empt
a crisis that could have more deleterious impact on the individual. A detailed
functional assessment may help to demonstrate why the behaviour is
occurring, and hence what needs to be altered in order to bring about service
change. In considering interventions in less than optimal circumstances,
the clinician may need to adopt a strong clinical advocacy role, through
communication with the relevant agencies, commissioners and regulators,
in order to try to bring about the necessary environmental changes.
context for delivering individualised supports

People with learning disabilities are generally disempowered and potentially
vulnerable to abuse or neglect. Their lack of power reduces their ability to
challenge poor practice and restricts their access to redress. In order to
support this group of people a strong set of ethical standards and values is
required.
Effective and ethical work must focus on individual needs and
circumstances; person-centred values have been adopted as the cornerstone
of Valuing People, The Same as You? and the Welsh Assembly Governments
response to Fulfilling the Promises. This approach is not only important in
terms of values but also outcomes for interventions. The Department of
Health (2006b) White Paper Our Health, Our Care, Our Say sets out the
Governments policy of designing services around the individual. Failure
to individualise an assessment of the function of a persons behaviour can
potentially lead to increases in the severity of a problem behaviour. For
example, two of the common functions of challenging behaviour are social
contact and social avoidance. These are opposites and to provide the same
response to the behaviour, regardless of the person and the context, could
result in completely different outcomes.
Within this document, we promote the approach that is increasingly
referred to as positive behavioural support (Carr et al, 2002). This approach
has emerged from three main sources
25
applied behaviour analysis

the normalisation/inclusion movement
person-centred values.
Positive behavioural support integrates the following components into a

cohesive approach
comprehensive lifestyle change
a lifespan perspective
ecological validity
stakeholder participation
social validity
systems change
multi-component intervention
emphasis on prevention
flexibility in scientific practices
multiple theoretical perspectives.
Assessment
Assessment is the process of collecting and evaluating relevant information
about the person, the social, interpersonal and physical environment, as well
as the behaviour that is challenging. Information about the person should
include medical and psychological/psychiatric factors.
The purposes of assessment are
to collect enough information to lead to a coherent formulation or

diagnosis
to lead to an intervention plan which fits the person and their

environment, and leads to an improvement in their quality of life
to establish a baseline that enables subsequent evaluation of

effectiveness.
The focus of the assessment should be determined by the impact of the
behaviour on the individual and those around them, including
the degree of physical harm to the person and others
the risk of loss of access to opportunities for development and

participation
the levels of distress being experienced by the person and others
the capacity and motivation for change in the person and in their
environment.
What
should be assessed?
The British Psychological Societys clinical practice guidelines on challenging
behaviour (British Psychological Society, 2004) and the report on the use of
medication for the management of behaviour disorders among adults with
a learning disability (Deb et al, 2006) provide detailed frameworks for the
assessment of challenging behaviours. In summary, an assessment should
address both the individual and their behaviour in the context of
underlying medical and organic factors (including medical examination

and investigations)
26
psychological and psychiatric factors

social and environmental factors
the interaction of these factors.
Pre-assessment
and preliminary risk evaluation
Before any clinician begins to carry out an assessment of a persons

challenging behaviour, they should perform a pre-assessment. This
preliminary information gathering shapes the initial focus of an intervention
and will include information that will assist the risk screening process,
the setting of priorities and provides some direction for the subsequent
assessment. The information should be provided by someone who knows
the person well. If there is continuing family involvement, family members
should be consulted.
Pre-assessment information should include
descriptions of the challenging behaviour
circumstances in which the behaviour occurs
frequency and severity of the behaviour
sensory impairments
the persons communication style
communication typically used by other people
specific disabilities, including aetiology of intellectual impairment
medical problems
current medication
setting in which the person lives/works
previous interventions
risks to the person or to others
existing risk management strategies
capacity to consent to current and potential interventions.
Risk
assessment
Risk is an inherent and fundamental aspect of behaviour that is described
as challenging and its assessment and management should therefore be
an integral part of all aspects of intervention and support. Although there
tends to be greater concern regarding risks of physical harm to others
and/or to the individual, there are significant risks to loss of the various
elements that make up quality of life (rights, choice, independence,
citizenship, participation, inclusion etc.). Risk assessment should constitute a
specific, documented component of the process. There should be an agreed
multidisciplinary and multi-agency framework for description and evaluation
of risk. This should include
a precise description of the behaviours including frequency, duration

and intensity and an indication of who or what is at risk
identification of any behavioural precursors displayed by the individual

that may indicate the probability of escalation of risk
identification of aspects of the environment that are associated with

increased likelihood of the behaviour.
The identification of these indicators should lead to planned early
intervention aimed at diffusing and altering the course of potential incidents.
27
The risk assessment must be mindful of the persons aspirations and wishes
as documented in their person-centred plan. Risk assessment should not be
used as an excuse to adopt a risk averse stance that then severely restricts
a persons life further, with the potential consequence of inadvertently
increasing their level of risk (Allen, 2002).
There may be rare situations where the risk assessment indicates that
support staff will need to physically intervene in order to manage risk (see
chapter on legislation).
Clearly, in an emergency situation it may not be possible to carry out
a full and detailed assessment before having to initiate some intervention to
protect the individual or others (LaVigna & Willis, 2002). Documentation in
such circumstances should detail what information was obtained to validate
the intervention, a projected timescale for the emergency measures and a
clear indication of when and how a full assessment will be completed.
Assessing
the function of behaviour
Functional
assessment
This is a specific behaviour-analytic procedure, where structured observation and other methods of assessment (for example interview of people in
frequent contact with the person or use of standardised questionnaires) are
employed to generate hypotheses about the challenging behaviour, antecedents which might be acting as stimuli for the behaviour and consequences
which may be reinforcing it. These hypotheses are then tested out by experimental trial in either a real life or a more controllable analogue setting. The
hypotheses that can be supported by experimental evidence are then used
to derive interventions to reduce or eliminate the challenging behaviour.
It is essential that an assessment attempts to establish the function
of challenging behaviours, in order to determine the correct basis for an
intervention. The terms functional assessment and functional analysis are
used interchangeably by some clinicians. Generally, functional assessment is
a more inclusive term that refers to a range of approaches to establish the
function of the behaviour, while functional analysis refers to more structured
techniques that may include manipulating antecedents and consequences
in order to establish their functional relationships (for example analogue
assessment, Iwata et al, 1990).
The evidence-base supports the use of functional analysis for
interventions where the primary focus is the reduction or elimination
of severely challenging behaviours in people with moderate, severe or
profound learning disabilities. A correlation has been found between carrying
out a functional analysis and successful outcome, measured by reduced
challenging behaviour (Scotti et al, 1991; Didden et al, 1997; Ager & OMay,
2001). This should therefore be the approach of choice where challenging
behaviour is severe and the most urgent target for intervention.
A functional analysis should follow three stages (Horner, 1994; Repp,
1994; Toogood & Timlin, 1996)
stage 1 hypothesis development: interviews or rating are used to

generate hypotheses or rule out areas for further investigation
stage 2 hypothesis testing: direct observation and more detailed

interviews are used to assess the accuracy of the hypotheses and
identify contextual factors
stage 3 hypothesis refining: either experimental analysis is used to

refine the working hypothesis or there is a direct move to intervention
28
strategies that are used to check the accuracy of the hypothesis about
the function of the behaviour.
Assessment
of physical disorder
In some individuals, challenging behaviour may be associated with a physical

disorder, particularly one that causes pain or physical discomfort. This may
commonly include
headaches and migraine
cerebrovascular and epilepsy-related events
earache and toothache
eyesight disorders
gut-related pain: gastro-oesophageal reflux, colic, peptic ulcers and

constipation
urinary tract infections and prostatism
bone and joint pain
neoplasms
wounds and fractures.

Clinicians should actively consider the role of possible physical disorders and/
or the iatrogenic effects of treatment and whether a more detailed physical
assessment is merited; referral for further assessment and investigations
should be supported where necessary.
Assessment
of psychiatric disorder
In some individuals, challenging behaviour may be associated with

psychiatric disorder (Borthwick-Duffy, 1994). Different types of mental health
problems may lead to different patterns of behaviour and consequently a
variability of challenges both between individuals and within the same
person. For example depression may be associated with apathy, withdrawal
and self-neglect or it may lead to severe agitation, irritability and repeated
attempts at self-harm or suicide. Mania on the other hand may be associated
with uncontrollable overactivity, impulsiveness and recklessness, irritability,
sexual disinhibition, aggression and violence. Individuals with a cyclical
or bipolar mood disorder therefore may present a variety of behavioural
challenges at different times and for varied durations.
Xenitidis et al (2001) presented schematically the relationship between
challenging behaviour and psychiatric disorders across the spectrum of
intellectual ability. This indicates that not all people with a learning disability
will show behaviour that is challenging; not all people who present behaviour
that is challenging have a learning disability; there is an overlap between
autism and psychiatric disorder, but neither necessarily leads to behaviour
that is challenging (see Fig. 2).
Emerson et al (1999) outlined three ways in which psychiatric
disorders may be associated with behaviours that present a challenge; we
have developed these and added a fourth:
1.
Behaviour as the symptomatic presentation of a psychiatric disorder:

psychiatric disorders may present in atypical ways among people
with highly restricted linguistic and adaptive behaviours: for example
some forms of self-injurious behaviour may constitute the atypical
29
Psychiatric
disorder
Challenging
behaviour
Learning
disability
Autisticspectrum
disorders
Fig. 2 Relationship between psychiatric disorder and challenging behaviour.

presentation of obsessivecompulsive disorder among people with
severe learning disability (King, 1993).
2.
Behaviour as a secondary feature of a psychiatric disorder:

a range of problem behaviours, including aggression and self-injury
may occur as secondary features of affective disorders among people
with severe learning disability (Sovner & Hurley, 1983; Reid 1992),
for example somatic symptoms such as headache and abdominal
pain, agitation, and disturbances of physiological functions such as
sleep, appetite and bowel movements may occur in people with severe
learning disabilities who are depressed and unable to express their
feelings verbally (Reid, 1992).
3.
As a motivational basis for the expression of previously established

behavioural patterns: The presence of a psychiatric disorder might
establish the conditions for certain behavioural responses that
themselves become reinforced and maintained by other environmental
or internal factors. Apathy and low motivation in depression, for
example, may be associated with an unwillingness to participate
in educational or social activities. The avoidance of these activities
may be negatively reinforcing, or the comfort of remaining at home
with carers may positively reinforce this withdrawal from previous
activities. Previous association of challenging behaviour with positively
or negatively reinforcing events may lead to an increase in these
behaviours at times of mental ill health.
4.
As an iatrogenic effect of medication: medication for the treatment

of psychiatric disorder may result in unwanted effects. These may
include: akathisia from neuroleptics, disinhibition from benzodiazepines,
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor- (SSRI-)induced anxiety, excessive
sedation and constipation. When a person with learning disabilities also
has a mental health problem (dual diagnosis) it is essential to have a
clear understanding of the emotional, cognitive and behavioural impact
of the psychiatric disorder on the person with a learning disability.
Psychiatric disorders such as acute psychosis, depression, anxiety disorders

and phobias should always be considered in a person with a learning
disability who shows behaviour problems. Conditions such as autism
(Bhaumik et al, 1997) and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
(Biederman, 2005) are more common among adults with learning disability
30
compared with their peers without learning disabilities. Both autistic

disorders and ADHD are associated with high rates of behaviour problems.
The assessment process should also consider enduring abnormalities of
personality that result in difficulties in interpersonal, occupational and social
functioning; examples being borderline, paranoid or dissocial personality
disorders. The term personality disorder however should be used with care;
it can be used pejoratively in people whose behaviours are intractable, are
considered socially unacceptable, or invoke strong emotional responses in
others. Although it may be used to describe a pattern of behaviour in people
with mild to moderate learning disability it is more difficult to be applied
conceptually in adults with severe and profound learning disability.
The assessment and diagnosis of psychiatric disorders in people with
learning disabilities can be complex and difficult and, in the UK, is usually the
domain of psychiatrists in the specialty of learning disability. It is essential
to note, however, that this process is not solely the domain of psychiatrists.
A thorough approach to diagnosis and formulation should bring together
relevant information, observations and specific assessments from a range of
sources and clinical disciplines. Careful distinction should be made between
behaviours associated with the symptoms of psychiatric disorder and those
related to the underlying developmental disorder. Changes in behaviour,
where clear symptoms and signs of psychiatric disorder are not evident,
should not be assumed to be due to a psychiatric disorder. Guidelines exist
for the assessment and diagnosis of mental health problems in people with
a learning disability (Deb et al, 2001; see also http://www.estiacentre.org).
For example, an adult with learning disabilities who appears to be having
a conversation with themselves or is raising their fist at unseen objects
should not be assumed to be experiencing hallucinations unless there is
further, more detailed evidence that can distinguish this as a hallucinatory
phenomenon rather than a behaviour that is consistent with the individuals
cognitive or developmental level. Similarly, the disorders of communication
and behaviour in autism, if taken at face value and without an understanding
of the underlying neuropsychological processes, could be mistaken for
thought disorder, hallucinations or delusions. Clinicians and carers should
also be aware of the phenomenon of diagnostic overshadowing, the
tendency to attribute behavioural patterns to the persons pre-existing
learning disability, thereby failing to consider the presence of a psychiatric
disorder superimposed on the persons learning disability.
The clinical team should also be aware of other contributory
psychological and emotional factors that may initiate and/or perpetuate
behaviour problems. For example
bereavement
psychological trauma
specific environmental stressors (new, ongoing or recurrent)
relationship difficulties
loss of self esteem
isolation.
Assessment
of communication
There is clearly a link between communication difficulties and challenging

behaviour. Desrochers et al (1997) found that only 32% of service users
whose behaviour severely challenged and were referred to challenging
31
behaviour services were able to communicate most or all wants and desires.
Research has shown that challenging behaviours typically increase in
frequency, intensity or duration when communication difficulties increase
(Talkington et al, 1971; Chamberlain et al, 1993; Cheung et al, 1995;
Bott, 1997). Most research to date has focused on the link between
expressive communication skills and challenging behaviour but the role of
understanding is also vital. For example challenging behaviour may result
from the individual not understanding what is expected of them (ClarkeKehoe & Harris, 1992; Bradshaw, 1998, 2002; Kevan, 2003).
Communication must be viewed within a partnership (Bartlett &
Bunning, 1997) in both assessments and interventions, where the
contributions of both the person presenting challenging behaviour and their
communication partners are included.
A detailed communication assessment is needed to give information
about the communication skills of the individual, their communication
environment (including the communication partners) and the ways in which
these are utilised within their daily lives (Bradshaw, 2002; Royal College
of Speech and Language Therapists, 2003). This should also include an
assessment of hearing skills.
There are also some specific communication considerations within a
functional assessment; for example, considering the role that communication
may have played within an analysis of antecedents, behaviours and
consequences.
Assessment
in autism
The principles above also apply to understanding the behaviour of people with
autism. It is essential that an objective and comprehensive assessment of all
individual and environmental factors is carried out. Assumptions should not
be made about the experiences, perceptions, understandings or beliefs of the
individual; many of the projections clinicians may make based on their own
internal experiences about sensations, communication, social rewards and
routines, are inappropriate or inaccurate when applied to people with
autism.
Autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder and its causes are associated
with a wide range of neuropsychological and interactional difficulties that vary
between individuals. Thus the clinician actively needs to consider evidence of
sensory as well as processing and motor anomalies; such factors as sensory
overload, for example, can produce extreme behavioural changes.
Although communication difficulties may be easily diagnosed, it
is often difficult to assess the persons specific difficulties; which is why
communication problems are a common aetiological factor of challenging
behaviour in people with autism. Communication difficulties can also severely
hamper the elucidation of physical and mental health problems.
In addition, the assumption that the person desires social interaction
can be erroneous since many people with autism have interests and
fascinations that do not include interacting with people other than to help
with these interests.
Formulation
and diagnosis
Formulation is best regarded as an hypothesis, or set of interconnected

hypotheses, about the nature of the presenting problem and its
32
development. It usually contains informed ideas about causal or functional

relationships between variables / events and the central problem. It has two
main functions
to guide clinical intervention within an explicit rationale
to aid the establishment of criteria for evaluation of the intervention.

Functional assessment and diagnosis are both integral features of the
assessment of challenging behaviours that should be carried out by all
clinicians, either individually or in collaboration.
Formulation is a component of both psychological and psychiatric

interventions. It occurs as part of the process of assessment, diagnosis
and treatment planning, in psychiatric and psychotherapeutic practice. The
establishment of a diagnosis of psychiatric illness, pervasive developmental
disorder, behavioural phenotype or specific cognitive impairments should
not in any way limit or unduly dominate all other factors in a complete
functional assessment.
There is no one single correct way to carry out a formulation; method
and form will depend upon the context, the theoretical model being utilised,
and the particular purpose of the formulation (Harper & Moss, 2003).
Psychiatric diagnosis is sometimes viewed as an unnecessary double
stigmatisation of the person already stigmatised by a label of learning
disability. This view is untenable since appropriate psychiatric diagnosis
based on a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of the individual can
enhance the assessment process and help to clarify possible aetiological
factors, prognosis and the nature of interventions and expected outcomes.
Interventions
Interventions should be delivered in a person-centred context. While the
detailed assessment and formulation process outlined above should result
in clear intervention strategies, these must be tailored to the individual,
their personal characteristics, environment and available resources for
support. Multi-agency and multidisciplinary involvement should occur in
close partnership with families and other carers. Detailed information
concerning the nature and outcome of previous interventions should be
obtained and taken into account.
A number of therapeutic modalities are described below which may be
delivered in combination (e.g. medication and family therapy). Whenever
possible, interventions should be introduced one at a time in order to
enable clearer evaluation of outcome. Depending on the findings of the risk
assessment described above, the therapeutic interventions may need to
take place in an environment in which safety and security can be offered.
Within the positive behavioural support framework, the plan should
include both proactive strategies for reducing the likelihood of the
occurrence of the behaviour, and reactive plans for managing the behaviour
when it does occur (Allen et al, 2005).
P roactive
strategies
Proactive strategies address the goodness of fit between the individual

and their environment. These strategies would be expected to reduce the
frequency, intensity or duration of the challenging behaviour by either
33
R eactive
adjusting aspects of the environment in order that they are more

supportive, or
attempting to address individual factors such as skills and tolerances
via systematic skills building, or
addressing physical health problems via medical intervention.
strategies
Reactive strategies are designed to deal with specific incidents. This may
involve
early intervention when signs are present that challenging behaviour

may be about to occur. This will involve identification of environmental
triggers known to be associated with the behaviour and behavioural
precursors that might indicate that the individual may be becoming
agitated. The aim here would be to diffuse the situation in order to
prevent escalation of the behaviour
physical management of the individual in order to ensure the safety of

all those involved. This would be a last resort and thus a relatively rare
occurrence and be in keeping with the relevant legal frameworks and
principles of good practice reported elsewhere in this document.
Psychotherapeutic
interventions
The underlying aetiology of challenging behaviour may relate to

psychological trauma, such as a past or ongoing history of abuse, losses
or bereavement (Hollins & Esterhuyzen, 1997), problems in sexuality and
intimate relationships, intra-familial and inter- and/or intra-personal conflict.
While interventions may initially focus on the immediacy of the challenges
being presented, it is also essential to understand and to work to resolve
some of these underlying conflicts or traumas. The importance of these
aetiological factors in people with learning disabilities has increasingly been
recognised (Sequeira & Hollins, 2003).
Psychotherapeutic interventions, having for many years been denied to
people with learning disabilities, are increasingly being validated as applicable
and effective (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2003). Cognitive behavioural
approaches either individually or in groups have been applied to problems of
anxiety, anger, aggression and offending; psychodynamic approaches may
be effective in reducing psychological distress and interpersonal problems
and increasing self-esteem as well as reducing offending behaviour (Hollins
& Sinason, 2000; Beail, 2003; Wilner, 2005). Although much of the current
evidence-base relates to people with mild learning disabilities, many
clinicians are adapting cognitively based interventions in order to make them
more available to people with more significant learning disabilities.
The group analytic approach in particular has been used extensively
in generic forensic mental health settings and has also been applied with
offenders with learning disabilities in secure settings (Xenitidis, 2005).
Moreover as the role of personality disorder is increasingly being explored
in adults with learning disabilities (Flynn et al, 2002) psychodynamic
formulations and psychotherapeutic interventions are likely to become more
widely used.
Families and carers can encounter personal and interpersonal stressors
and conflicts that may benefit from psychotherapeutic intervention and
support using family, systemic or group analytic models. The services,
34
agencies and wider organisational structures involved in supporting

individuals who present severe challenges may also become dysfunctional
and thereby contribute to the failure to meet the challenges presented by the
individual. Systemic, organisational or other psychotherapeutic approaches
can contribute to recognising and addressing these issues at this wider level
(Baum & Lyngaard, 2006).
Assessments and interventions for supporting the individual with
challenging behaviour should therefore always consider the potential role
of psychotherapeutic models in enabling formulation and/or diagnosis and
treatment at a number of levels.
Communication
interventions
There are a number of communication-focused approaches to challenging

behaviour which have been reported in the literature (Bradshaw, 1998;
Brown, 1998; Chatterton, 1998; Dobson et al, 1999; Thurman, 2001). These
have typically attempted to improve the communication skills of both the
person with a learning disability and/or their communication partners and
communication environments. This may include interventions designed to
increase the communication skills of the individual, for example
increasing the effectiveness of existing communication skills (e.g.

increasing clarity of communication)
teaching the individual more ways of communicating (additional/

vocabulary or forms of communication such as signs or symbols)
and/or the skills of the communication partners, for example
improving recognition and understanding of the individuals

communication skills (both in terms of what they understand and how
they express themselves)
assisting communication partners to provide appropriate models of

communication
facilitating communication partners use of appropriate forms of

communication, such as use of signs, symbols and objects, in addition
to spoken communication
structuring partner communication so that it is within the individuals

understanding
and the wider communication environment, for example
promoting good listening environments (e.g. reducing distractions and

background noise)
providing individuals with opportunities to take part in a range of

communication acts (e.g. to ask questions, comment etc.)
increasing the amount of good quality communication.

Communication-based interventions may also be challenging behav
iour-specific, such as those found within the literature on functional
communication training. Once the function(s) of behaviours have been
assessed, attempts are then made to replace these behaviours with a
functionally equivalent communicative response. For example, teaching the
person to use a Makaton sign for break to replace behaviour that serves
the function of avoiding demands. Such interventions have been shown to
reduce the level of behaviours that are challenging (Carr & Durand 1985;
Carr et al 1991; Durand & Carr, 1991; Carr, 1994; Carr et al, 1994).
35
Positive
programming
One of the central components of positive behavioural support (Horner et
al, 1990) is to enable the person to engage in meaningful activities and
relationships. Changes in a persons quality of life are both an intervention
and a measure of the effectiveness of an intervention. Interventions are
frequently delivered through, and in partnership with, a range of different
mediators (families, support workers etc; Lucyshyn et al, 1997). Mediators
need to be both skilled in the delivery of positive interventions, and organised
and supported in such ways that they can support people positively.
Specific approaches to positive programming may be required if
mediators are to be supported to deliver positive interventions. One such
approach is active support (Jones et al, 1999) a package of procedures
which includes activity planning, support planning and training for providing
effective assistance. Such approaches have been shown to increase the
levels of assistance that individuals receive and their engagement in
everyday activities.
Physical
and/or medical interventions

If assessment indicates that a behaviour is a consequence of an underlying
medical condition (for example chest infection, dehydration, epilepsy)
that requires medication or other physical treatment, then this should be
addressed promptly within the treatment plan and reassessment made in
the light of response to treatment. There is good evidence that common and
treatable medical conditions often go undiagnosed and untreated in people
with learning disabilities (Hatton et al, 2002).
Psycho-pharmacological
interventions
A medication treatment plan should be drawn up that explicitly addresses

the following
the name of the medication and who is to prescribe it
a clear indication of how dosage will be titrated cautiously according to

individual response and susceptibility to side-effects
whether physical examination and investigations are required prior to

treatment and as part of ongoing monitoring
desired outcome of treatment, assessment methods and timescales
Potential adverse effects, including effects on quality of life of the

individual and their carers, how these adverse effects should be
monitored and the action to take if they occur.
Although psycho-pharmacological treatments have been widely used in
the management of behaviour there is a meagre evidence-base for their
effectiveness; there are very few studies comparing different medications for
the management of specific behaviour problems. Specific treatments cannot
therefore be recommended for specific behaviour problems.
It is however appropriate to consider medication as an important
component in the management of psychiatric disorders and aetiological
or contributory psychiatric symptoms. Thus an underlying depression
may require treatment with antidepressants, a cyclical mood disorder
with mood stabilisers or a psychotic disorder with an antipsychotic drug.
Obsessivecompulsive disorder, panic or generalised anxiety that results in
36
or exacerbates challenging behaviour may benefit from treatment with an

SSRI. High levels of arousal and anxiety contributing to aggression in an
individual with autism may respond to the tranquillising or anxiolytic effects
of an antipsychotic or to other drugs used in the treatment of anxiety
(Einfield, 2001).
Pharmacological treatment in people who present challenging
behaviour should only be initiated following a thorough process of
assessment, diagnosis and formulation that has clearly established either
that an identifiable psychiatric disorder is present
or
that there are significant psychiatric symptoms
and
these are an aetiological or contributory factor in the behaviour which
is presenting a challenge
and
the medication proposed can be expected to improve the psychiatric
disorder or symptoms identified (if the medication is not licensed for

the disorder then there must be an established literature giving a
rationale for the proposed medication).
Other factors to be taken into account should include
inadequate response to other non-drug interventions
likely speed of response to different interventions
significant risk or evidence of harm and/or distress to the individual
significant risk or evidence of harm and/or distress to others
high frequency and/or severity of behaviour problems
good response to previous drug interventions
possibility of greater effectiveness of, or enhanced ability to deliver,
other interventions as a result of drug treatment.

Medication should not be planned and delivered in isolation, it should be
an integral part of a comprehensive intervention strategy and should be
regarded as adjunctive or complementary to other non-drug interventions
planned and delivered by various members of the multidisciplinary team
(Deb et al, 2006, see http://www.ld-medication.bham.ac.uk). It is important
to bear in mind that medication may be recommended by a psychiatrist
but prescribed by an individuals general practitioner. The initiation,
discontinuation or alteration of medication may therefore occur without
the specialist teams knowledge. It is essential that there is active dialogue
between the responsible clinicians in primary, secondary and specialist health
services.
Prior to initiating medication the prescribing clinician, in consultation
with the person, their family and carers and other members of the
multidisciplinary team, should therefore address the following
what range of management options has been considered?
what medication is the individual already prescribed?
have there been any past adverse reactions to medication?
does the formulation include a clear rationale for the proposed drug
treatment?
what is the likely effectiveness of the proposed treatment?
is there a clear, objective method of assessment of outcome and
adverse effects?
37
have issues of capacity and consent been fully taken into account and
recorded?
is the proposed treatment in the best interests of the individual,
considering all alternative interventions?
is the proposed treatment and its implementation consistent with
relevant legal frameworks?
is the dose and planned duration of treatment within British National
Formulary and other good practice prescribing guidelines and dose
recommendations?
As well as the general intervention documentation described above, a medic

ation treatment plan must be written that explicitly addresses the following
the name of the medication and who is to prescribe it
how the dose should be titrated, and over what period of time
whether physical examination and investigations are needed prior to
treatment and as part of the ongoing monitoring

potential adverse effects, including effects on quality of life of the
individual and their carers, how these adverse effects should be

monitored and what action should be taken if they should occur.
The use of medication makes it even more important that the intervention
plan clearly records
the working formulation including rationale for medication
desired outcome of treatment, assessment methods and timescales
consent to treatment (if the person lacks capacity to consent, then the
rationale for its administration and the views of others).

There are occasions where the intensity of an individuals behavioural
disturbance (aggression, anxiety, agitation) may require urgent intervention
for the protection of the individual or of others. In these circumstances
clinicians should follow an established rapid tranquillisation policy for
example those produced by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(2005) or the Bethlem and Maudsley Prescribing Guidelines (Taylor et al,
2001), modified if necessary to take account of increased vulnerability
of people with learning disabilities to adverse effects of medication. Such
interventions, however, should be followed immediately by a multidisciplinary
review and assessment as outlined above to determine the longer-term role
of drug interventions for the individual.
Initiating
intervention plans
Before commencing any intervention, it is important to bring together

all the elements of assessment described above into a coherent and
concise treatment plan. This plan should be developed and agreed by the
multidisciplinary team, the individual and carers. The relevant roles and
responsibilities of all involved, including a named professional and process
for coordination, should be clarified, documented and agreed.
Evaluation
Clinicians are under an ethical obligation to measure the impact of their
interventions on the target behaviour, because the nature of challenging
38
behaviour is such that, by definition, there is a threat to the health and wellbeing of the person concerned or those close to him or her.
All interventions should be routinely evaluated for their effectiveness
and this evaluation should be planned at the point of initiation of the
intervention. There is evidence to suggest that those that are more
thoroughly evaluated are more likely to demonstrate a positive outcome
(Scotti et al, 1991; Didden et al, 1997).
An evaluation will usually repeat baseline measures from the start of
an intervention and look for any evidence of change. The measurement of
challenging behaviour alone, is an inappropriately narrow focus and as a
minimum, the evaluation should consider
the severity, frequency and duration of the target challenging

behaviour
the persons quality of life and range of activities or opportunities
the persons development of positive skills and abilities
the persons well-being and satisfaction with the intervention
the well-being and satisfaction of carers or family members in close

contact with the person.
Adverse effects of the intervention should also be carefully monitored.
Follow-up assessments should always consider withdrawal of medication
(if medication has been a component of the intervention strategy) and be
incorporated with an introduction of alternative non-drug managements.
The clinician needs to make a specific evaluation of those factors that
he or she is attempting to change. If an intervention attempts to teach
new skills, for example, then the acquisition of those new skills should
be measured. If the intervention is hoping to change an environment,
then measures of the environment need to be taken before and after the
intervention.
The evaluation should also include a review of the initial formulation.
There is significant evidence that demonstrates the potential persistence of
challenging behaviour over long periods of time. It is, therefore, essential that
progress is monitored repeatedly over extended time periods, thus allowing
measurement of the impact of interventions
early identification of potential deterioration or relapse.

Work on relapse prevention with people with learning disabilities is at a very
early stage but the literature suggests that relapse is a very real problem,
patterns of severe challenging behaviour do not simply disappear (Anderson
et al, 1993).
Communication
and feedback
Communication between professionals, carers and service users, and the

timely sharing of information is an essential component of care. Many
services have guidelines on the timeliness and content of reports and letters,
which need to be adhered to as an essential element of good practice. It is
likely that many people will be the subject of the care programme approach
or some other system of care coordination and it is essential that such
mechanisms are properly utilised.
The term feedback should also be understood more broadly to include
verbal and informal communication. Feedback should be provided at several
stages, as follows
39
at the end of the assessment period and when the formulation has
been produced
following interventions, whether or not these are successful
when there is a substantial revision to the formulation or the proposed
intervention plan
on completion of work with the individual or care team.
Feedback should also be given to the person with learning disabilities in an

understandable and respectful form.
People involved in the assessment or intervention should receive
regular and routine feedback, as should the referrer and other important
people in the life of the person with learning disabilities. This, of course, is
dependent upon appropriate consideration of issues of confidentiality (see
below).
There is some evidence for the effectiveness of presenting feedback
in different modalities or formats. Visual presentations, for example, may
be important for people with autism (Clements, 1987; Mesibov et al, 1988).
The use of video feedback to help a person understand their own behaviour
can also be helpful.
The most important factor in providing feedback for staff and families
appears to be goodness of fit with the environment, recognising the skills,
preferences and styles of the people with whom one is communicating. For
example, the use of visual representations (graphs, bar charts, pie charts or
scatter plots) can be very helpful for some people, while others find numbers
or narrative easier.
Clinicians must ensure that they respect the confidentiality of the
person with learning disabilities when they are giving feedback. It is
particularly important for clinicians working with people who are not socially
valued and often not seen as active agents in their own lives to be mindful
of the requirement to respect confidentiality. There is anecdotal evidence to
suggest that breaches of confidentiality are more likely to occur with more
disabled and more disadvantaged groups of people.
Sometimes clinicians are perplexed about whether family members or
paid carers should be provided with personal information about the person
with learning disabilities. The following factors should be considered
the person with a learning disability should be asked, where possible,

what information they do or do not wish to have shared with other
specified people. It is important to allow for the tendency of people
with learning disabilities to be acquiescent to requests of this sort in
assessing consent to sharing information
partnership working with close family members is often of central

importance in the life of a person with learning disabilities. The clinician
needs to consider this when making a decision to share or to withhold
information. It is likely to be necessary to work alongside the family
to strengthen relationships so that they can offer mutual trust, safety
and the capacity for development
there is no obligation to pass on information unless there is a serious

risk to a person or others. A parent, for example, does not have a right
to know everything about their adult son or daughter
where there is a serious risk to the person with a learning disability or

others, the clinician has an obligation to share information with those
who need to know in order that they can take steps to protect others
or themselves
40
it may be helpful to consider what information would be shared in

similar circumstances if the person did not have a learning disability.
As well as providing feedback to others, the clinician should also ask for
feedback from others on his or her own performance, establishing a twoway process that can modify or improve their clinical practice, personal
development and professional revalidation.
Intervening
in less than optimal services: clinical
advocacy
Given the nature of challenging behaviour, appropriate intervention will
usually involve some combination of changing the situation the person
is in (for example who they live with, how staff support them, what they
do) and intervention with the person themselves (for example developing
functionally equivalent alternatives to challenging behaviour or treating
underlying mental health problems). If services are poorly set up (for
example too many people living together, not enough staff, too far from
shops and amenities) then the environmental aspects of change may include
redesigning the service.
In practice, clinicians may often be asked to intervene in services
that are ill-conceived, badly set up, under-resourced, and where staff or
managers are not sufficiently skilled or motivated to implement effective
means of working with people. The services may, for example
not be able to provide all the support that is required
be unable or unwilling to carry out recommended interventions
have poor levels of knowledge or skills
have a high staff turnover
be using aversive or punitive measures to control the individual.

It may also be the case that services or organisations do not change despite
interventions, reports or advice.
In these less than optimal situations, clinicians face a dilemma; if
they recommend interventions which they believe represent best practice
in addressing the problem, they may not be carried out or not carried out
sufficiently well. Intervention may become discredited, staff demoralised and
potentially the clinician is blamed for unrealistic expectations. The person
receiving services suffers from inadequate and incompetent intervention
and may end up gaining a reputation of being beyond help when in fact it
is services that have failed them.
On the other hand, if clinicians acknowledge the deficiencies of
the service they are working with, they may need to propose pragmatic
interventions which deal with the short-term crisis but leave the underlying
problems untouched. The service, and the commissioners and care
managers who assess and plan for the individual, are therefore not enabled
to learn from the problem and develop the service, so that the risk is that
the problem will recur again and again. The individual person receives
less effective intervention than they need and may suffer more restrictive
intervention than would be needed in a better situation.
Given scarce resources and the urgency of the request for help,
clinicians may feel that they have to do something and may end up
41
delivering less than optimal interventions themselves; for example,

medication being prescribed in the absence of other interventions as a
result of these being unavailable or undeliverable in the particular setting.
Alternatively they may refuse to intervene in settings that are unsafe or
unable to change. Neither approach should be acceptable; professional
ethics and codes of practice make it clear that as well as a duty to do their
best to meet the needs of the individual, the clinician has a duty to point out
when they believe that the client is suffering unduly as a result of service
deficiencies or bad practice (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2004; British
Psychological Society, 2006). Facing this dilemma, clinicians have two
responsibilities these are not alternatives: both have to be done:
to do their best with the resources that are available to meet the needs
of the person concerned
to draw to the attention of the responsible authorities that the service

the person is receiving is unsatisfactory, to indicate in what respects
it is deficient and to spell out the negative consequences of these
deficiencies on the quality of life of the person concerned.
A role of clinical advocate may need to be adopted in which the
clinician, within the appropriate boundaries of confidentiality, works together
with the service user to ensure that their needs are clearly outlined and
communicated to relevant managers, commissioners or inspectorates.
A detailed, recorded, functional assessment, formulation and diagnosis,
together with a risk assessment are vital in not only highlighting individual,
environmental and systemic issues, but also the impact on the individual and
those around them, of a failure to respond appropriately and adequately to
their needs.
Clinical advocacy must not be confused with shroud waving. The
clinician does not refuse responsibility for trying to help the person, nor
do they make general claims beyond that which the evidence supports.
They maintain a degree of objectivity at the same time as illuminating the
personal and human facets of the situation that the person is challenging.
Where possible, more than one potential solution should be sought in order
to help those responsible for managing, developing and commissioning
services to find creative and flexible responses within the system in which
they work.
We acknowledge that this is a difficult area and one where clinicians
need to maintain appropriate and safe boundaries in their clinical relationship
with the service user. They may also need to make service providers and
commissioners aware of their professional duty to point out problems with
the way services are set up and run. However, clinicians cannot escape this
responsibility. They will often be the most highly-trained resource the service
user has and their potential influence is considerable.
42
Capable environments
In recent years, increasing numbers of people whose behaviour challenges

services have moved from institutional settings to a range of places in the
community (Mansell et al, 2002). Demonstration projects have shown that
people can be well supported in the community (Felce et al, 1994; Mansell,
1994, 1995; Horner et al, 1996; Mansell et al, 2001), but the learning from
these has not become embedded nationally as models for service delivery.
Three problems commonly exist
family support and local placements can break down, and there are
rarely local alternatives or supports that are of sufficient quality
out-of-area placements then become the most likely alternative. A

study in the West Midlands, for example, shows a steep rise in the
number of people placed out-of-area in recent years (Ritchie et al,
2005, p.45). Such placements are often both expensive, and a long
way from the persons family and community (Mitra & Alexander, 2003;
Beadle-Brown et al, 2006)
despite the national requirements for inspection and monitoring, there

still exist institutional services where restrictive and abusive practices
persist (Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, 2006, 2007).
These are often in larger settings where every resident demonstrates
behavioural challenges (Robertson et al, 2004)
Where these problems exist in a locality at a significant level, they can
produce two further consequences
the process of care planning can become overwhelmed by crises and

short-term reactive responses which are almost entirely concerned
with finding placements to take people whose existing arrangements
have broken down
the overall cost of services increases, since the new placements for
people whose behaviour is challenging are able to command higher
fees. Despite these higher costs, the new placements are often of
poorer quality, not only because they often remove people from their
local communities, but also in terms of care practices (Emerson et al,
1992; Robertson et al, 2004).
Reasons
for breakdown, out-of-area placement
and poor quality services

It is important to recognise that the reason for the breakdown of local
placements is generally not the behaviour itself. Local services can
successfully support people who present a wide range of challenges (Mansell
43
et al, 2002). Rather, the reason lies in the way typical services respond to
people who present challenges.
As outlined in the previous chapter (Focusing on the person), the term
challenging behaviour is socially constructed. The term represents the
interaction of both individual and environmental factors, and the relationship
between them (see Fig.1).
When people are supported in services that are unable to respond
appropriately to their needs, it is more likely that the person will develop
patterns of behaviour that are then responded to in ways that will maintain
that behaviour. If services are poorly organised, it is more likely that they
will be challenged by the behaviours and that the behaviours will then persist
(Department of Health, 1993).
In the past, there have been some nave beliefs that simply by
discharging people from institutional settings into community placements,
there would be an increase in their opportunities, and a consequent decrease
in behaviours that challenge. A change of model by itself is insufficient to
bring about a change of behaviour (Emerson & Hatton, 1994).
Another persistent belief is that behaviour can be eliminated through
appropriate biomedical or psychological treatment alone. Biomedical
interventions may be effective in changing behaviours where the underlying
cause has a physical basis that is amenable to medication (Deb et al,
2006). Successful psychological interventions (British Psychological Society,
2004) are frequently not maintained, due to a lack of the required level of
consistency by the support team (Oliver et al, 1987).
Rather than relying on attempts to alter a persons behaviour
by changing service models, or through treatment, it is evident that
commissioners and managers should be designing services that promote
a persons quality of life in spite of the intensity or frequency of their
behaviour.
Staff teams should not be looking for quick solutions to what may
be lifelong patterns of behaviour. They need to be trained, supported and
managed in such a way that they can promote positive interactions that
may bring about increased participation, independence, choice and inclusion
within local communities. Limitations in placement competence appear to
reflect a lack of training, or relevance of training, and practice leadership
(Mansell, 1996; Jones et al, 1999), as well as a lack of knowledge (Hastings,
1996), value conflicts (McGill & Mansell, 1995) and different perceptions by
front-line staff about the priorities in their work (Mansell & Elliott, 2001).
The rhetoric of treatment, in which challenging behaviour is seen as entirely
located within the individual and amenable to medical or psychological
treatment, actually helps perpetuate unsophisticated support for individuals
presenting challenging behaviour in residential care or in their family homes.
The requirement for staff to work in skilled and well-organised ways is
diminished by the belief that the problem lies in the person and that they
can be cured, usually somewhere else.
At this point in the development of community-based services,
commissioners are typically paying for large numbers of residential care
places that can support individuals who do not present particular challenges,
and only a few places that can support people with more complex needs
(and these places are not always of good quality). There is a mismatch
between the level of need in the population of people with learning
disabilities and the range of available provision. Fig. 3 illustrates how, for
an increasing level of need for responsive, resourced and skilled support
and intervention, there is not an equivalent capacity to deliver these in the
44
majority of services. Within a small service sector there is a concentration

of skills and resources only for those who present the greatest challenge (or
risk) or who have been rejected by local services. In the majority of local
community-based service provision, the capacity and capability to respond
appropriately to behavioural challenges is generally low. When a certain
threshold of tolerability is exceeded then a specialist and resource intensive
solution is sought, increasingly within the independent sector and away from
the individuals place of origin.
Support
for placements
In the situation described above, people who may present a significant

challenge to services which are not really staffed, trained and organised to
respond to their needs are likely to be excluded. The ideological commitment
to supporting people in the community, so widely evident in learning
disability services, breaks down under pressure.
Even if the services concerned wished to continue to support
individuals presenting major challenges, there is often not enough capacity
to do so. Within staff teams, there is typically little expertise. Most staff are
untrained, staff turnover is high, and what training people have received is
likely to have been restricted to reactive management methods rather than
proper preventive and ecological strategies. Once challenging behaviour
escalates to a frequent, severe problem the staff may not be able to cope.
The major source of the expertise needed to work with people
presenting challenging behaviour is located in professionals, typically
employed by the health service and organised in multi-professional teams.
These teams include nurses, psychologists, speech and language therapists,
Range of service
provision
Fig. 3 Need and capability in services for people with learning disabilities.
, capability of service to respond;
, individual demand on
service
45
physiotherapists, psychiatrists, occupational therapists, social workers and

other therapists. There are major shortages of some of these groups.
Yet these professionals face substantial problems even where they
do exist. Basing their approach on recent research and development, they
expect to analyse the challenging behaviour in the situation in which it is
occurring and develop a package of intervention components which include
ecological manipulation: managing the situation to avoid triggering

challenging behaviour while still supporting people to engage in
meaningful activity and relationships
positive programming: helping the individual learn functionally equiv

alent alternatives to challenging behaviour to get what they need
direct treatment: responding to the challenging behaviour in a way

that will reduce its functional effectiveness
reactive management: how to work with the person safely during

episodes of challenging behaviour (Donellan et al, 1988).
This kind of approach requires careful, consistent, sustained implementation
by staff, often over many days or weeks. They will need to work together
as a team, to understand the principles underlying the professionals
recommendations so that they can sensibly adapt to changing circumstances,
to manage their interaction with the focal service user and record events
and incidents.
Given the level of training, turnover and the prevailing ethos in learning
disability services, staff are rarely able to respond to these demands. A
common reaction therefore is a kind of stand-off. Staff providing direct
support to people with learning disabilities often say that professionals do
not understand the practical constraints they face and generate action plans
that are impossible to implement. Meanwhile, clinicians report that staff
are simply not able to carry out necessary assessments and intervention
(Beadle-Brown et al, 2006). They may lower their expectations but thereby
run the risk of their plans being ineffective.
Difficulties of implementation are exacerbated during periods when the
individuals behaviour is most challenging. Questions then arise about the
ability of the staff team to sustain the action plan. Once a few staff have been
injured or incapacitated there may not be enough skilled staff within the team
to carry on. Nor can help usually be found from other local services because
of the scarcity of expertise of the level required and the inability to deploy
staff between different providers. The gap between relatively unsophisticated
and effective services is too great to be bridged, especially in a crisis.
Given these difficulties, providers often feel that they have no choice
but to exclude individuals from their services. Facing a shortage of services
that will take people with serious challenging behaviour, care managers are
then often obliged to place people in settings out-of-area, away from any
local links the person may have.
Specialist
challenging behaviour placements
Once their existing placements break down, people are often moved to
special challenging behaviour services. These may be assessment and
treatment services, of which there are estimated to be about 60 in England.
This arrangement reflects the dominant treatment paradigm in which
particularly complex individuals are referred to more specialised services,
which group people with more challenging problems together and deploy
46
rarer expertise to assess, treat and if not cure, at least ameliorate peoples
problems to the extent that they can return to less specialised services.
In some cases the greater skill and organisation in the special unit
is indeed effective at helping to reduce the severity and impact of the
individuals challenging behaviour. This might be because of particular clinical
skills (Murphy & Clare, 1991; Mansell et al, 1994a) identifying the causes
of challenging behaviour and the best ways of responding to it. It might
also more simply reflect better training and organisation of staff, so that
they provide a more consistent approach than was possible in the former
placement.
In these cases the issue then becomes how easy it is to transfer the
knowledge and skill of the staff in the specialist service to the persons
original home since, in most cases, maintenance of improvement will
require changes in how staff there provide support. This requires exactly
the same kind of organisation as when external professionals advise staff,
and faces all the same problems described above. Thus, in practice, units
for the short-term assessment and treatment of challenging behaviour often
face difficulties in providing a way back for individuals, who become de
facto long-term residents (Beadle-Brown et al, 2006) and clinicians report
concerns as to whether some specialist units do in fact offer greater skill
and organisation themselves or rather simply refer to their local learning
disability teams following admission.
In units that are partly or wholly providing long-term care, there is
an uneasy relationship between the ideology of short-term assessment and
treatment, and providing support to people in their long-term home. The
focus on assessment and treatment can mean that insufficient attention
is given to the quality of peoples lives throughout the day, with a primary
focus for staff attention on control and on challenging behaviour. Practices
which might be tolerable for a short stay are not acceptable when people are
more-or-less permanent residents, and there is a risk that the environment
and staff practices degenerate to a lowest common denominator because of
the wide variety of challenging behaviour that occurs over time. Thus, for
example, furnishings become barren as individuals damage them and they
are not replaced for reasons of health and safety, behaviour management or
economy; resident access to their rooms and communal spaces is controlled
and choice is reduced to fit in with the regime. In so far as special units are
separate, geographically, organisationally and socially, from ordinary learning
disability services and the wider community, isolation and norm drift can
occur. There is evidence that special challenging behaviour units, and other
residential services which group together people whose behaviour challenges
services, provide less good quality of care than community services (Mansell,
1994, 1995; Robertson et al, 2002; Mansell et al, 2003).
Excluding people from their home and sending them to a special
challenging behaviour unit also risks creating several perverse incentives
at service system level for the providers of support and accommodation
to people with learning disabilities. It can confirm the reputation of the
individual concerned as impossible, making it harder to set up a new
placement locally. Potentially, it rewards weak management and training and
represents a failed opportunity for developing the capacity and skill of local
services. It could reward a strategy of allowing situations to worsen, rather
than taking preventative action as early as possible, and it perpetuates
passing the buck as a service response.
If present arrangements continue, one might expect to see the growth
of new institutions for people with learning disabilities. Although there
47
are now only 700 people with learning disabilities living in NHS long-stay
hospitals, there are 3700 places in private nursing homes and hospitals,
many of which will be for people who present challenging behaviour
(Department of Health, 2004).
Strategies
Creating
for improving services
capable environments
How might services be improved to enable people with learning disabilities
who present challenging behaviour to remain in their own homes and
communities, in services which provide a good quality of life? Providing more
resources for the existing arrangements is not necessarily going to help;
more specialist teams and units would not address the reasons why existing
teams and units have limited effectiveness. The analysis presented above
offers some obvious alternative indications for action to improve services.
Fundamentally, the aim of service providers and commissioners should be
to increase the capability and capacity of the environments in which people
ordinarily live, in order to enable them to respond appropriately to individual
need.
The focus of the challenge presented by the behaviour(s) of an
individual can be conceptualised as occurring at the interface between the
characteristics of the environment in which the individual lives and the
services available. The capacity and/or competence of the environment
to respond to challenging behaviour is determined by a number of factors
among which we would see the following as being salient
organisational structure
appropriateness of response
flexibility of response
delivery of service
o staff number
o staff skills
o staff deployment
attitudes and attributions (culture and values)

stability and focus.
Within this environment there should be a range of skills available,

ranging from those core skills held by all carers, support staff and profession
als, to those highly specialised skills in the fields of mental and physical
health, psychological therapies, communication and behavioural skills.
A model of competency-based training can be applied to skills
acquisition by support staff. Skills related to the understanding, assessment
and management of challenging behaviour can be developed in the same
way as that described for psychological therapies in the NHS (National Health
Service Executive, 1996):
type A: fundamental those integral to all work with people with

learning disabilities. This may include basic understandings of
person-centred approaches, psychological and/or behavioural
interventions, signs and symptoms of mental illness, values and
principles of understanding and supporting people whose behaviour
is challenging.
48
type B: specialised specific skills in the assessment, diagnosis/

formulation and management of mental and behaviour disorders and
how they may underlie challenging behaviours. All learning disability
psychiatrists, psychologists, speech and language therapists, nurses
and other members of the multidisciplinary health team should possess
these skills to different degrees.
type C: highly specialised specialised skills in the assessment, formul
ation and management of challenging behaviours. These can be held by
a variety of professionals with specific experience and training and may
be delivered as part of specialist challenging behaviour services.
The point of intersection of these two parameters, capacity/competence and

skills, is where the focus of interaction with the individual with a learning
disability is located. It is at this locus that we concentrate our efforts to
understand the person and the meaning of their behaviour through
listening and asking questions (Why are you doing this?, Why do you
think he/she is doing this?, Why is this happening?, What are you/we
doing in response to this?)
communication assessments and interventions
person-centred approaches
assessment, formulation/diagnosis, intervention
psychotherapeutic interventions
risk assessment
multidisciplinary and inter-agency collaboration.

For any particular individual, the balance of skills that are required must be
titrated according to need, and this will be always changing over time.
The drivers behind service development will be pushing towards a
greater degree of competence and capacity in the environment, with more
skills being delivered through type A interventions; currently we find low
competence/capacity environments with maximum reliance on highly
specialised services. This aim can be expressed in a reconstruction of Fig. 3,
see Fig. 4 where capability parallels need.
It is important to note that this does not express an intent to reduce
the numbers of professionals with specialist skills. On the contrary, in
order for there to be greater competence and capacity within services and
agencies, it is essential that there is a highly skilled specialist workforce
to deliver advice, support, training and supervision in addition to specific
interventions and therapeutic work with individuals, carers and families.
In this model, the role of specialist practitioners should be more focused,
validated and strengthened.
Promoting
creative solutions
Capacity and competence in the persons environment are essential, but the
nature of the concept of challenging behaviour begs a further quality that
of creativity. In the original sense of the term, the challenge of a particular
behaviour was aimed at those around the person, carers, professionals
and services to find alternative ways of responding to the behaviour. It is,
therefore, clear that the greater the challenge then the more likely that
people will need to
find more creative responses and solutions
overturn traditional or longstanding responses
49
Range of service
provision
Fig. 4 Aim for capability to parallel need.

respond;
, individual demand on service.
, capability of service to
adopt counter-intuitive ideas

question the necessity for the established reputation and practice
around the individual
take managed risks
adopt a greater flexibility of roles and responsibilities
establish creative and unconventional working partnerships between
individuals, community supports, voluntary and statutory agencies,
professionals.
Many emergency placements are made at times when it is not easy to

enlist the assistance of people who might be able to find and provide more
creative responses. Faced with a breakdown of an individuals support and
with limited resources, time and clear paths of access to a range of options,
clinicians and managers often have to adopt restrictive or custodial solutions
of admission to hospital, assessment and treatment units or out-of-area
placements. More creative and person-centred solutions cannot be rapidly
conjured up at short notice; services and living environments therefore need
to be in a state of creative preparedness. Day-to-day operation should be
based on principles and practice that expands the range of
activities
community links and participation
networks of friends and supporters
links between statutory and non-statutory services
people able to provide support both in the short and long term.
Potential solutions to a placement breakdown might include, for example
deployment of support workers to engage the individual in activities

outside the home until the crisis has abated or to enable less time to
be spent in the home on a daily basis
50
deployment of support workers or extra skilled staff into the individuals

home to work through a crisis
extra skilled leadership or support for staff to help in getting back on
track
a weekend hotel break for the individual (or for family)
staying with tolerant or skilled friends
borrowing a caravan or flat for a holiday break
using a local flat or house before it is permanently occupied
using a designated respite care home.
To support such an approach, services need to adopt new ways and

principles of working. These should allow for example
flexibility in recruitment and deployment of a range of skilled staff

a focus on enriching the capabilities of the immediate environment
rather than a reliance on specialist services
planning realistic futures with individuals rather than leading a life of
surprises
building spare capacity into service growth and individual care plans
working in an integrated manner with a range of service provision for
an individual who crosses the conventional statutory and non-statutory
sector boundaries
clear rules about not taking an individuals home away while they are
in assessment/treatment or respite facilities
Proactive risk management plans for predictable crises.
Person-centredness
When thinking about the skills of carers and professionals, service structures
and provision, it becomes easy to overlook the individual at the heart of all
this activity. Experience would suggest that individuals who present severe
challenges are less likely to have supports that are tailored to individual
preferences and choices. Of course, it can also be argued that it is the failure
to deliver such individualised supports that may lead to the occurrence of
challenging behaviour.
It is essential that those planning and delivering support and packages
of care should consider what a good enough service would feel like to the
service user. We assume that such a service would be constructed firmly
around the individuals
likes, dislikes, aspirations

preferred social activities
valued activities
communication style
friendships and other social relationships
integration and participation in community activities, relationships and
supports
validating and non-aversive, non-punitive support from others
physical, psychological and spiritual well-being
sense of home.
51
Focus
on care practices
The service community (the people commissioning and planning services,
providing them, working in them and using them) needs to recognise that
challenging behaviour is relatively common in services for people with
learning disabilities and that it is unlikely to disappear as the result of shortterm treatment. The implication is that the present model, in which support
is almost entirely provided by unqualified and unskilled staff, relying on a
small amount of specialist services to help them or deal directly with the
most challenging individuals, needs to be replaced.
The pervasive ideology of treatment, moving people around in the
belief that they can be fixed somewhere else, is inappropriate. What is
required is that a much greater proportion of staff are sufficiently skilled
so that they can support people to live well in the community, even if they
present challenges in terms of their behaviour.
Although this might seem a radical departure from a well-entrenched
model, it is in fact one expression of a general shift that is required in social
care services. Across all client groups, the populations now using community
services have many more disabilities than those who were using them 20
or 30 years ago and they have complex needs which demand considerable
skill as well as common sense and humanity in the staff who work in these
services.
If the goal is to support the individual in achieving as good a quality of
life as possible in spite of their problems, this has implications for the kind of
support provided by staff, and their training, management and organisation.
It requires individually tailored placements, which may involve living with
two or three other people, but which are not challenging behaviour homes.
Whether these are peoples own homes (e.g. through the supported living
movement) or small group homes they should provide a homely, comfortable
and individualised environment.
The quality of staff support provided should be focused on enabling the
individual to engage in meaningful activity and relationships at home and
in the community, and staff should be skilled and well-organised to deliver
what is called active support (Mansell et al, 1987, 1994a, 2005; Jones et al,
1996; Mansell, 1998).
Within this context of good preventative practice, through providing
skilled active support, placements will need to address challenging behaviour
through methods of positive behavioural support (Koegel et al, 1996). This
involves developing individual skills, especially communication skills, and
rendering them differentially effective over challenging behaviour through
contingent reinforcement (McGill, 1993; British Psychological Society,
2004).
This implies changes in the training and status of staff in order to
achieve and retain the expertise required. Whereas current training policy
is focused only on achieving the most basic level of training (Department of
Health, 2002), services that can support people with a wider range of needs
require staff with more advanced training who can follow a career providing
skilled support to people with learning disabilities. It also implies changes
in regulatory practice to focus on the quality of support offered to people
(Commission for Social Care Inspection, 2004) and to detect the early signs
of decay in care practices which lead to placement breakdown (Mansell et
al, 1994a, b).
52
Creative commissioning
Matching
purchasing strategy to need
The requirements for good support for individuals give commissioners a clear
basis on which to develop and select competent providers. Most directly,
the requirement for more skilled support could be reflected in service
specifications and monitored through contract compliance arrangements.
Given evidence of the very limited developmental role now played by local
authority social services in respect of learning disability services (Cambridge
et al, 2005), an alternative route to developing the market may be through
personal budgets and independent brokerage (Department of Health,
2005).
However needs are specified there are not enough services that
can provide the level of skilled support required in each local area.
Commissioners therefore have an important role in developing the new
kinds of services that will be required. This might include direct facilitation
through recognition, help and financial reward to bring new service providers
into the local market, or to shape up existing service providers to be able to
provide the level of support needed. There are documented examples of this
approach (Mansell et al, 2001) and recently the In Control project set out
to build individualised support arrangements around individuals, including
people with complex needs, in the context of personal budgets (Duffy et
al, 2004). Developing sufficient skilled support locally will also require
commissioners to manage the incentives for provider competence, so that
services which really do provide more skilled support are treated differently
from those that do not.
Recognising the fragmented nature of service provision, it is also
important to encourage provider cooperation and mutual support. For
example, if a particular service enters a difficult period in which several staff
are injured, it is important that they can call on other staff of comparable
levels of skill to help get through the difficulties. At present, services tend
to work in isolation and even if staff could be borrowed from other local
providers, they would be unlikely to have the knowledge and skill required
in the more specialised service. Small-scale services have to work together
if they are to be sustainable.
Re-fashion challenging
behaviour services
Instead of functioning as a route for taking over service provision to

individuals in crisis, challenging behaviour services need to use their
specialist skills to help managers in the provider network lead their staff in
53
the provision of effective local services. This requires closer coordination

between the people paying for services, the managers providing services and
the professional specialists advising on the support people need, to ensure
that advice is both practical and is acted upon.
This might be achieved in at least three ways
there could be closer integration between care managers, care

standards inspectors and members of community learning disability
teams or more specialised challenging behaviour teams. These
different external sources of advice, help and control could work
together (in the way that they do, for example, in adult protection
investigations) so that advice to service providers is clear, consistent
and authoritative
many of the skills and the expertise to carry out assessments,

interventions and proactive risk management plans exist within the
clinical staff employed within the NHS. Staff training and support to
local services in different sectors should be a core role of specialist
health professionals
the extension of personal budgets could allow individuals (or individual

trusts, or other representatives) to decide for themselves whether the
specialist advice they pay for is useful and whether the support staff
they employ follow it. Present proposals for the extension of direct
payments and personal budgets (Department of Health, 2005) do
not include health services but this would be a logical development of
present policy.
When placements enter crisis, people whose behaviour is challenging are
likely to be excluded, often to specialised challenging behaviour assessment
and treatment units. These units serve multiple functions, including
assessment, treatment, respite for the individual or others and a holding
area while new placements are sought. Part of the strategy should therefore
be to replace the one-stop shop of challenging behaviour units with a wide
range of tailored options to meet these multiple needs. In particular, help will
be required to find or create new options for housing and support locally. For
as long as sufficiently skilled services are scarce, the expertise of challenging
behaviour support teams is likely to be needed to help in this task.
Instead of regarding challenging behaviour as a clinical problem
located within a minority of individuals, commissioners should recognise that
challenging behaviour is relatively widespread and persistent. Services need
to be configured in order to support people in spite of potential or actual
challenging behaviour and this means that commissioners need to choose
services in which staff have the expertise to do so.
Commissioners also need to manage the market they have created in
order to sustain the capacity of local services to meet the needs of everyone
with learning disabilities. This involves encouraging service providers to
cooperate, underpinning service competence through training and service
development and reshaping specialised challenging behaviour services to
support effective local placements.
Whether commissioning can meet this challenge remains to be seen.
Cambridge (1999) suggests that commissioning in learning disability
services has failed to realise its potential. Increasing enthusiasm among
policymakers for direct payments and personal budgets may reflect a view
that commissioning by local authorities is unlikely to meet the needs of
disabled people. However, although increased personalisation may reduce
the need for some aspects of service selection and design at the individual
54
level, it will not remove the need for the population-level work of developing
and coordinating sufficient services in each locality.
Future
commissioning arrangements
In 2005 new funding arrangements for the NHS were introduced, which
are likely to impact on the commissioning and provision of specialist
psychological and psychiatric services for people who present behavioural
challenges.
At the time of writing, it is intended that services provided by the NHS
will be subject to a national tariff. Each provider will then have to match their
services against this benchmark cost, and services that are significantly over
the base tariff will presumably have to either cut costs or justify them. These
tariffs are not yet available for services for people with learning disabilities
whose behaviour is challenging and an alternative method of costing may
be developed.
Whatever form of costing is decided upon, however, services will be
more accountable in terms of their cost and their outcomes. Funding is likely
to be on a contracted basis, and sourced through primary care trusts (PCTs)
and practice-based commissioning. The financial imperatives may drive
commissioning to the cheapest provider (and the NHS will face competition
from voluntary and private sector providers). Services therefore will need
to be able to demonstrate both value for money and effectiveness. They will
need to promote high standards demonstrating high-quality evidence-based
interventions, effective outcomes and at a cost that appears to be broadly
in line with other services.
Providers of psychological and psychiatric services to people whose
behaviour is challenging will therefore need to demonstrate that they
are achieving good outcomes. This is difficult to achieve in work which
usually requires input and support from a range of other individuals and
organisations. They will also need to gain contracts from commissioners,
as purchasing of services will no longer automatically go to the local NHS
provider. Those services which either do not deliver good outcomes or fail
to meet other contractual requirements may lose their funding, while those
services which do achieve good outcomes, at a reasonable cost, are more
likely to grow and expand.
Clarity over outcomes and clearly defined service provision should
increase the quality of services available to people presenting challenging
behaviour. However, difficulties may occur if one provider has a contract via
the NHS arrangement, but circumstances arise where it can not be properly
delivered. This is not an infrequent occurrence in delivering services to
this client group and specialist services have usually retained the right to
withdraw their services if the advised treatment is not being implemented.
This may be more difficult to do in the new contracting arrangements, or
it may be that the intervention will take longer (and therefore cost more)
with consequent impact on overall contract activity. Commissioners will,
therefore, need to be aware of
best practice in intervention
the outcomes achieved by the intervention (and these may be broader

than behavioural change)
the difficulties in predicting how long an intervention will take, as it

depends on many others to implement.
55
Future directions
Compared with most other areas of work with people who have learning
disabilities, there is an extensive evidence-base to guide professionals who
support people whose behaviour is seen as challenging. However, there are
significant issues around implementation of best practice, as is evidenced
by the number of people who have to be referred to out-of-area placements
when their local services are unable to support them. The purpose of this
section is to identify some of the areas of practice that have not been fully
addressed within this document, or where future research is required in
order to create a context for successful professional practice.
Areas
not addressed in this document

The main focus of this document has been on adults who have limited
capacity or ability to exercise choice over their interactions with the
environment. This has therefore excluded children and many people who
may fall within the forensic services. Much of this document may be of
relevance to professionals who work with children or offenders, however
their needs should be fully considered in a future report. In addition,
functional assessment and functional analysis are approaches that are
applicable to many different client groups, not just to people with learning
disabilities.
In particular, it is recognised that there needs to be an emphasis on
early intervention and preventative work. There is an evidence-base that
suggests that once patterns of behaviour have developed, and environmental
responses have become entrenched, it is difficult to bring about lasting
change without extensive interventions. Challenging behaviour may be
a lifelong problem and there needs to be a greater emphasis on lifelong
planning across services. Within services for adults, there is a recognition
that by the time of transition into adult services, many children have
unnecessarily been moved into large scale, out-of area residential care,
and that interventions are too rarely based upon the principles of positive
behavioural support. Many adults are also in out-of-area placements, and
services are actively seeking to bring them back. This document could be
useful in assisting in the transition process and in the quality monitoring
of both existing and planned placements, as well as in developing new
services.
This report has been written by professionals, primarily for
professionals. Although there has been consultation with both service users
and carers in its development, it has not been our intention to address the
content specifically to them. Instead, our aim is to work with service user
and family carer groups in the near future to prepare a charter that outlines
56
what should you expect your local services to look like if they are meeting
the standards set out in this report?
Implementation
By itself, this document is unlikely to bring about significant improvements
in services for people who present behavioural challenges. Locally tailored
multidisciplinary implementation plans are required in order to develop these
guidelines into local care pathways. It is neither possible nor appropriate to
dictate the details of such pathways, as they will be determined by existing
local service strengths and gaps. However, the good practice standards
(see Appendix 1) should provide a framework for local teams to review
themselves and agree their own pattern of service delivery. This process
should include all local stakeholders, including carers, service users,
providers, commissioners, professionals, regulatory bodies etc. Local teams
should ensure that they have in place a service delivery plan that includes
all the elements addressed within this report.
Currently, most residential accommodation support to people is
provided through systems that are regulated in England by the Commission
for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), the Care Standards Inspectorate for
Wales (CSIW), and the Care Commission in Scotland. Generally psychiatrists
and psychologists do not directly influence these bodies. A policy paper,
Best Practice Guidance on the Operation and Management of Registered
Care Homes for People with Learning Disability Who Present Significant
Challenges was written by the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC)
(2003), the forerunner to CSCI. It is important that there is consistency
between our groups. It may be possible for clinicians to work with colleagues
in the various inspection bodies to develop a process for challenging
behaviour accreditation.
Other specific areas of work that could potentially influence the
implementation of best practice include
collaboration with service users and family carers. Partnership models

such as the family partnership approach (Davis et al, 2002) offer
ideas for implementing change in collaboration with a range of carers,
paid and unpaid. Albin et al (2002) have highlighted some of the
difficulties of transferring interventions based on positive behavioural
support from the clinic or research environment into peoples natural
environments. This requires further specific work
NICE guidance development. There is currently a lack of NICE guidance

relating directly to people with learning disabilities though, unless
specifically excluded, all NICE guidance should be considered to be
applicable across the range of intellectual ability. The development of
guidance on psychological and physical treatments or management
strategies for behaviours that are challenging could prove useful
though, in a field of great heterogeneity of individual characteristics,
aetiologies etc., such guidance should aim to facilitate a range of
approaches rather than be narrowly restrictive
training of support/care staff. There is a need for new support

workers to be able to hit the ground running when they start
to work with people who challenge. In an area of high staff turn
over, there is a need for a rolling programme of competency-based
training, including responding to potentially violent situations. The
57
Further
current LDAF and NVQ models of staff training do not place sufficient
emphasis on training staff, from their first day of employment,
in methods that will enable them to fully support people who
challenge. It is to be hoped that the new learning disability
qualifications training models that are being developed by the
Valuing People support team and skills for care will address this.

Professionals using this document will have a significant role in
teaching and training others. Carers and support staff will have a
major role in delivering the interventions described, and we will need
to provide ongoing training and support to both develop and maintain
services that can meet the complex needs described in this document.
Allen et al (2005) draw attention to some of the reasons for positive
behavioural support not being used more widely. These include the
limited training opportunities and commissioners reluctance to specify
that staff have such training.
Core skills and training for professional staff. Professional training
for psychologists, psychiatrists, speech and language therapists and
other members of the multidisciplinary team, at all levels, including
ongoing professional development should be developing a strong and
clear focus on core skills and demonstrable competences in working
with people who present behavioural challenges. Current changes in
professional training regulation and monitoring provides opportunities
for building new training approaches and methods of evaluation.
New commissioning/purchasing models. The growth of individualised
budgets can be viewed as a means of introducing greater individuality,
flexibility and creativity of service purchasing and delivery. Where
people can have control of who they purchase to support them,
there may be concerns about the nature and standards of training,
supervision and support that those individuals might have in supporting
people with behavioural challenges.
Payment by results. It is difficult to envisage how this will work in
learning disability services as a whole, in the absence of examples
of its operation or piloting elsewhere. In the model of defining and
responding to challenging behaviour as laid out in this document it
is not immediately apparent how one might conceptualise activity,
case-mix and healthcare resource groups. It is essential that clinicians
engage with this process at an early stage in order to assist in finding
meaningful parameters to describe and quantify healthcare activity
and to avoid a regression to the use of challenging behaviour as a
diagnostic term.
joint work between professions
It is hoped that the production of this report represents the early steps in
a developing programme of joint professional working at both national and
local levels that should include
further development of guidance on the appropriate and specific uses

of psychotropic medication
the development and description of integrated models of diagnosis and

formulation, for example bio-behavioural or bio-psychosocial models.
Effort should be made to bring together models that may, at times,
appear to be in opposition to one another
58
Research,
the description and demonstration of the characteristics of effective

multidisciplinary working
acknowledging that providing input to social care settings should
be a core role for clinicians, we need to be clearer on how we work
with and influence services that are not delivered within the NHS
(for example how do clinicians influence training plans, philosophy,
values, therapeutic approaches etc. in residential care homes within
the independent sector?)
addressing workforce issues including implementation of New Ways of
Working and New Types of Workers initiatives
the further development of psychotherapeutic approaches, extending
the potential benefit to families, carers and those with greater degrees
of intellectual impairment, for whom these may not be currently the
prime intervention of choice
addressing issues of abuse perpetrated against, rather than by people
with learning disabilities who present severe behavioural challenges;
considering how we should investigate and protect against abuse in
such vulnerable people.
evaluation and audit
More collaborative and inter-disciplinary activity is needed in research

evaluation and audit to look at
the development of a set of outcome measures for interventions in

the assessment and management of the behavioural challenges of
people with learning disabilities. Particular focus should be placed on
measuring the outcomes of interventions with carers, staff teams and
other systems
the establishment of a current evidence-base around effective

interventions, based on good single case methodology and generally
building up a research evidence base from clinical practice
the prevention of unnecessary out-of-area placements, including how

best to provide effective supports to families and local care systems.
This may include a cost-benefit analysis of preventing unnecessary
out-of-area placements that addresses outcomes for people, financial
cost of placing people away from their communities, and the lost
opportunities for investing locally in services that might support other
people who present challenges.
59
References
Ager, A. & OMay, F. (2001) Issues in the definition and implementation of best practice
for staff delivery of interventions for challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual
and Developmental Disability, 26, 243256.
Albin, R.W., Dunlap, G. & Lucyshyn, J.M. (2002) Collaborative research with families on
positive behavior support. In Families and Positive Behavior Support: Addressing
Problem Behavior in Family Contexts (ed. J. M. Lucyshyn, G. Dunlap & R. W. Albin),
pp. 373389. P. H. Brookes.
Allen, D. (2002) Devising individualised risk management plans. In Ethical Approaches
to Physical Interventions. Responding to Challenging Behaviour in People with
Intellectual Disabilities (ed. D. Allen), pp. 7188. BILD Publications.
Allen, D., Banks, R. & Staite, S (1991) Meeting the Challenge Some UK Perspectives
on Community Services for People with Learning Difficulties and Challenging
Behaviour. Kings Fund.
Allen, D., James, W., Evans, J., et al (2005) Positive behavioural support: Definition,
current status and future directions. Learning Disability Review, 10, 411.
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental
Disorders (DSMIV). APA.
Anderson, J. L., Albin, R. W., Mesarols, R. A., et al (1993). Issues in providing training
to achieve comprehensive behavioural support. In Communicative Alternatives
to Challenging Behaviour (eds J. Reichel & D. P. Wacker ), pp. 317342. P. H.
Brookes.
Bartlett, C. & Bunning, K. (1997) The importance of communication partnerships: A study
to investigate the communicative exchanges between staff and adults with learning
disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 148153.
Baum, S. & Lyngaard, H. (2006) Intellectual Disabilities A Systemic Approach. Karnac
Beadle-Brown, J., Mansell, J.L., Whelton, B., et al (2006) People with learning disabilities
in out-of-area residential placements: 2. Reasons for and effects of placement.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 845856.
Beail, N. (2003) What works for people who have mental retardation: critical commentary
on cognitive-behavioural and psychodynamic psychotherapy. Mental Retardation,
41, 468472.
Bhaumik, S., Branford, D., McGrother, C., et al (1997) Autistic traits in adults with learning
disabilities. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 502506.
Biederman, J. (2005) ADHD a selective overview. Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1215
1220.
Blunden, R. & Allen, D. (1987) Facing the Challenge: An Ordinary Life for People with
Learning Difficulties and Challenging Behaviour. Kings Fund.
Borthwick-Duffy, S.A. (1994) Prevalence of destructive behaviours. In Destructive
Behaviour in Developmental Disabilities: Diagnosis and Treatment (eds T.
Thompson & D. B. Gray). Sage.
Bott, C., Farmer, R. & Rhode, J. (1997) Behaviour problems associated with lack of speech in
people with learning disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41, 37.
Bradshaw, J. (1998) Assessing and intervening in the communication environment. British
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 6266.
60
Bradshaw, J. (2002) The management of challenging behaviour within a communication

framework. In Management of Communication Needs of People with Learning
Disability (eds S. Abudarham & A. Hurd), pp. 246275. Whurr Publishers.
British Psychological Society (2004) Challenging Behaviours: Psychological Interventions
for Severely Challenging Behaviours Shown by People with Learning Disabilities.
British Psychological Society.
British Psychological Society (2006) Code of Ethics and Conduct. British Psychological
Society.
Brown, L. (1998) Carer communication making the change. Speech and Language
Therapy in Practice, (Summer), 47.
Cambridge, P. (1999) More than just a quick fix? The potential of joint commissioning
in services for people with learning disabilities. Research Policy and Planning, 17,
1222.
Cambridge, P., Carpenter, J., Forrester-Jones, R., et al (2005) The state of care
management in learning disability and mental health services twelve years into
community care. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 10391062.
Carr, E. G. (1994) Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393399.
Carr, E. G. & Durand, V. M. (1985) Reducing behavior problems through functional
communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111126.
Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. C. & Robinson, S. (1991) The effects of severe behavior problems in
children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
24, 523535.
Carr, E. G., Levin, L., Mcconnachie, G., et al (1994) Communication-based Intervention for
Problem Behavior: A Users Guide for Producing Positive Change. P. H. Brookes.
Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Homer, R. H., et al (2002) Positive behaviour support: evolution of
an applied science. Journal of Positive Behaviour Interventions, 4, 416, 20.
Chamberlain, L., Cheung, C., M. & Jenner, L. (1993) Preliminary findings on communication
and challenging behaviour in learning difficulty. British Journal of Developmental
Disabilities, 39, 118125.
Chatterton, S. (1998) An investigation of speech and language therapy to improve the
communication environment of people with severe learning disabilities who have
communication difficulties and behaviours that challenge services. Journal of
Learning Disabilities for Nursing, Health and Social Care, 2, 203211.
Cheung, C., M., Jenner, L., Chamberlain, L., et al (1995) One year follow up pilot study
on communication skill and challenging behaviour. European Journal of Psychiatry,
9, 8395.
Clarke-Kehoe, A. & Harris, P. (1992) Its the way that you say it. Community Care, 923,
2122.
Clements, J. (1987) Severe Learning Disability and Psychological Handicap. Wiley.
Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (2006) Joint Investigation into the
Provision of Services for People with Learning Disabilities at Cornwall Partnership
NHS Trust. Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.
Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (2007) Investigation into the Service for
People with Learning Disabilities Provided by Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust.
Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection.
Commission for Social Care Inspection (2004) Inspecting for Better Lives: Modernising the
Regulation of Social Care. Commission for Social Care Inspection.
Davis, H., Day, C. & Bidmead, C. (2002) Parent Adviser Training Manual. Psychological
Corporation.
Deb, S., Matthews, T., Holt, G., et al (eds) (2001) Practice Guidelines for the Assessment
and Diagnosis of Mental Health Problems in Adults with Intellectual Disability.
European Association for Mental Health in Mental Retardation (EAMHMR). Pavilion
Press.
Deb, S., Clarke, D. & Unwin, G. (2006) Using Medication to Manage Behaviour Problems
Among Adults with a Learning Disability. University of Birmingham, Royal College
of Psychiatrists, Mencap.
61
Department for Constitutional Affairs (2007) Mental Capacity Act 2005. Code of Practice.
DCA
Department of Health (1993) Services for People with Learning Disabilities and Challenging
Behaviour or Mental Health Needs (The Mansell Report). TSO (The Stationery
Office).
Department of Health (2001) Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for
the 21st Century. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Department of Health (2002) Care Homes for Younger Adults and Adult Placements: National
Minimum Standards: Care Homes Regulations. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Department of Health (2004) Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England.
TSO (The Stationery Office).
Department of Health (2005) Independence, Well-being and Choice: Our Vision for the
Future of Social Care for Adults in England. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Department of Health (2006a) Bournewood Briefing Sheet. Department of Health.
Department of Health (2006b) Our Health, Our Care, Our Say: A New Direction for
Community Services. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Department of Health/Department for Education and Skills (2002) Guidance on Restrictive
Physical Interventions for People with Learning Disability and Autistic Spectrum
Disorder, in Health, Education and Social Care Settings. Department of Health.
Department of Health & Welsh Office (1999) Code of Practice to the Mental Health Act
1983. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Desrochers, M. N., Hile, M. G. & Williams-Moseley, T. L. (1997) surveys of functional
assessment procedures used with individuals who display mental retardation
and severe problem behaviors. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 101,
535546.
Didden, R., Duker, P.C., & Korzilius, H. (1997) Meta-analytical study on treatment
effectiveness for problem behaviours with individuals who have mental retardation.
American Journal of Mental Retardation, 101, 387399.
Dobson, S., Stanley, B. & Maley, L. (1999) An integrated communication and exercise
programme in a day centre for adults with challenging behaviours. British Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 27, 2024.
Donellan, A. M., LaVigna, G. W., Negri-Shoultz, N., et al (1988) Progress Without
Punishment: Effective Approaches for Learners with Behavior Problems. Teachers
College Press.
Duffy, S., Casey, J., Poll, C., et al (2004) In Control: A National Programme To Change The
Organisation Of Social Care In England So That People Who Need Support Can Take
More Control Of Their Own Lives And Fulfil Their Role As Citizens. Mencap.
Durand, V. M. & Carr, E. G. (1991) Functional communication training to reduce challenging
behavior: Maintenance and application in new settings. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 24, 251264.
Einfield, S.L. (2001) Systematic management approach to pharmacotherapy for people
with learning disabilities. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 7, 4349.
Elsek, P.E., Greenhalgh, T. (2001) The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ, 323,
625628.
Emerson, E. (2003) The prevalence and use of reactive management strategies
in community-based services in the UK. In Ethical Approaches To Physical
Interventions. Responding To Challenging Behaviour In People With Intellectual
Disabilities (ed. D. Allen). BILD publications
Emerson, E. & Hatton, C. (1994) Moving Out: Relocation from Hospital to Community.
TSO (The Stationery office).
Emerson, E., Beasley, F., Offord, G., et al (1992) An evaluation of hospital-based
specialized staffed housing for people with seriously challenging behaviours. Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, 36, 291307.
Emerson, E., Moss, S. & Kiernan, C. (1999) The relationship between challenging
behaviour and psychiatric disorder in people with severe developmental disabilities.
In Psychiatric and Behavioural Disorders in Developmental Disabilities and Mental
Retardation. (ed. N. Bouras). Cambridge University Press.
62
Felce, D. & Lowe, K. & de Paiva, S. (1994) Ordinary housing for people with severe
learning disabilities and challenging behaviours. In Severe Learning Disabilities and
Challenging Behaviours: Designing High Quality Services (eds E. Emerson, P. McGill
& J. Mansell), pp. 97118. Chapman & Hall.
Flynn, A., Matthews, H. & Hollins, S. (2002) Validity of the diagnosis of personality disorder
in adults with learning disability and severe behavioural problems. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 180, 543546.
Harper, D., & Moss, D. (2003) A different kind of chemistry? Reforming formulation.
Clinical Psychology, 25, 610.
Harris, J., Allen, D., Cornick, M., Jefferson, A., et al (1996) Physical Interventions. A Policy
Framework. British Institute of Learning Disabilities.
Hastings, R. P. (1996) Staff strategies and explanations for intervening with challenging
behaviours. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 40, 166175.
Hatton, C., Elliott, J. & Emerson, E. (2002) Key Highlights Of Research Evidence On The
Health Of People With Learning Disabilities. Institute for Health Research, Lancaster
University (commissioned by the Valuing People Support Team, Department of
Health).
Hollins, S., & Esterhuyzen, A. (1997) Bereavement and grief in adults with learning
disabilities. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 497501.
Hollins, S., Esterhuyzen, A. & Sinason, V. (2000) Psychotherapy, learning disabilities and
trauma: new perspectives. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 3236.
Horner, R. H. (1994) Functional assessment: contributions and future directions. Journal
of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27, 401404.
Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L., et al (1990) Toward a technology of non-assertive
behavioural support. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
15, 125132.
Horner, R. H., Close, D. W., Fredericks, H. D. B., et al (1996) Supported living for people
with profound disabilities and severe problem behaviors. In Persons with Disabilities
who Challenge the System (eds D. H. Lehr & F. Brown). P. H. Brookes.
Iwata, B. A., Bollmer, T. R. & Zarcone, J. R. (1990) The experimental (functional) analysis
of behavior disorders: methodology, applications, and limitations. In Perspectives
on the Use of Non-Aversive and Aversive Interventions for Persons with Devel
opmental Disabilities (eds A. C. Repp & N. Singh ), pp. 301330. Sycamore Press.
Jones, E., Perry, J., Lowe, K., et al (1996) Active Support: A Handbook for Planning Daily
Activities and Support Arrangements for People with Learning Disabilities. Booklet
1: Overview. Welsh Centre for Learning Disabilities Applied Research Unit.
Jones, E., Perry, J., Lowe, K., et al (1999) Opportunity and the promotion of activity among
adults with severe intellectual disability living in community residences: the impact
of training staff in active support. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 43,
164178.
Jones, R. (2005) Mental Capacity Act Manual (1st edn). Sweet and Maxwell
Kevan, F. (2003) Challenging behaviour and communication difficulties. British Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 31, 7580.
King, B. H. (1993) Self-injury by people with mental retardation: A compulsive behaviour
hypothesis. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 93112.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L. & Dunlap, G. (1996) Positive Behavioral Support: Including
People With Difficult Behavior In The Community. P. H. Brookes.
LaVigna, G. & Willis, T. (2002) Counter-intuitive strategies for crisis management within
a non-aversive framework. In Ethical Approaches To Physical Interventions.
Responding To Challenging Behaviour In People With Intellectual Disabilities (ed.
D. Allen). BILD publications.
Lucyshyn, J. M., Albin, R. W., & Nixon, C. D. (1997) Embedding comprehensive behavioural
support in family ecology: An experimental single case analysis. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 241251.
Mansell, J. (1994) Specialized group homes for persons with severe or profound mental
retardation and serious problem behaviour in England. Research in Developmental
63
Mansell, J. (1995) Staffing and staff performance in services for people with severe
or profound learning disability and serious challenging behaviour. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 39, 314.
Mansell, J. (1996) Issues in community services in Britain. In Deinstitutionalization and
Community Living: Intellectual Disability Services in Britain, Scandinavia and the
USA (eds J. Mansell & K. Ericsson), pp. 4963. Chapman & Hall.
Mansell, J.(1998) Active support (editorial). Tizard Learning Disability Review, 3, 46.
Mansell, J., & Elliott, T. (2001) Staff members prediction of consequences for their work
in residential settings. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 424447.
Mansell, J., Felce, D., Jenkins, J., et al (1987) Developing Staffed Housing For People With
Mental Handicaps. Costello.
Mansell, J., J., Hughes, H. & McGill, P. (1994a) Maintaining local residential placements.
In Severe Learning Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour: Designing High-Quality
Services (eds E. Emerson, P. McGill & J. Mansell), pp. 260281. Chapman & Hall.
Mansell, J., J., McGill, P. & Emerson, E. (1994b) Conceptualising service provision. In
Severe Learning Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour: Designing High-Quality
Services (eds E. Emerson, P. McGill & J. Mansell). Chapman & Hall.
Mansell, J., J., McGill, P. & Emerson, E. (2001) Development and evaluation of innovative
residential services for people with severe intellectual disability and serious
challenging behaviour. In International Review of Research in Mental Retardation
(ed L. M. Glidden), pp. 245298. Academic Press.
Mansell, J., Ashman, B., Macdonald, S., et al (2002) Residential care in the community for
adults with intellectual disabilities: needs, characteristics and services. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 625633.
Mansell, J., Beadle-Brown, J., Macdonald, S, et al (2003) Functional grouping in residential
homes for people with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental
Mansell, J., Beadle-Brown, J., Ashman, B., et al (2005) Person-centred Active Support:
A Multi-media Training Resource For Staff To Enable Participation, Inclusion And
Choice For People With Learning Disabilities. Pavilion.
McGill, P. (1993) Challenging behaviour, challenging environments, and challenging needs.
Clinical Psychology Forum, 56, 1418.
McGill, P. & Mansell, J. (1995) Community placements for people with severe and profound
learning disabilities and serious challenging behaviour: Individual illustrations of
issues and problems. Journal of Mental Health, 4, 183198.
Mesibov, G. B., Schaffer, B. & Schopler, E. (1988) Individualised Assessment And
Treatment For Autistic And Developmentally Disabled Children. 4: Adolescent And
Adult Psycho-educational Profile. ProEd.
Mitra, I. & Alexander, R. (2003) Out-of-area placements: implications of psychiatric
services in learning disability. Psychiatric Bulletin, 27, 382385.
Murphy, G. H. & Clare, I. C. H. (1991) MIETS: A service option for people with mild
mental handicaps and challenging behaviour or psychiatric problems: 2 Assessment
treatment and outcome for service users and service effectiveness. Mental Handicap
Research, 4, 180206.
National Assembly for Wales (2001) Fulfilling the Promises. Proposal for a Framework for
Services for People with Learning Disabilities. National Assembly for Wales.
National Care Standards Commision (2003) Best Practice Guidance on the Operation and
Management of Registered Care Homes for People with Learning Disabilities who
Present Significant Challenges. National Care Standards Commision.
National Patient Safety Agency (2004) Understanding the Patient Safety Issues for People
with Learning Disabilities. NPSA.
NHS Executive (1996) NHS Psychotherapy Services in England: Review of Strategic Policy.
Department of Health.
Oliver, C., Murphy, G. & Corbett, J. (1987) Self-injurious behaviour in people with mental
handicap: a total population study. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 31,
147162.
Reid, A. H. (1992) The Psychiatry of Mental Handicap. Blackwell.
64
Repp, A. C. (1994) Comments on functional analysis procedures for school-based

behaviour problems. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 27, 409411.
Ritchie, F., Goodman, N., Nix, J., et al (2005) Out Of Area, Out Of Sight? Review Of Out
Of Area Placement Arrangements Made By Social Services And Health For People
With Learning Disabilities From The West Midlands. Birmingham and The Black
Country Strategic Health Authority and West Midlands South Strategic Health
Authority.
Robertson, J., Emerson, E., Pinkney, L., et al (2002) Quality & Costs of Community
Based Residential Supports for People with Learning Disabilities and Challenging
Behaviour. Institute of Health Research, University of Lancaster.
Robertson, J., Emerson, E. & Pinkney, L. (2004) Quality and costs of community-based
residential supports for people with mental retardation and challenging behavior.
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2004) Good Psychiatric Practice (2nd edn) (College Report
CR125). Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2005) The Evidence Base for the Management of Imminent
Violence in Learning Disability Settings (Occasional Paper OP57). Royal College of
Psychiatrists.
Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (2003) Speech and Language Therapy
Provision for Adults with Learning Disabilities (Position Paper). Royal College of
Speech and Language Therapists.
Scotti, J. R., Evans, I. M., Meyer, L. H., et al (1991) A meta-analysis of intervention
research with problem behaviour: treatment validity and standards of practice.
Scottish Executive, Health Department (2000) The Same As You? A Review Of Services
For People With Learning Disabilities. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Sequeira, H. & Hollins, S. (2003) Clinical effects of sexual abuse on people with learning
disability: Critical literature review. British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 1319.
Sovner, R. & Hurley, D.A. (1983) Do the mentally retarded suffer from affective illness?
Archives of General Psychiatry, 40, 6167.
Talkington, L. W., Hall, S. & Altman, R. (1971) Communication deficits and aggression in
the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 235237.
Taylor, D., McConnell, D., McConnell, H., et al (2001) The South London and Maudsley NHS
Trust, 2001 Prescribing Guidelines (6th edn). Martin Dunitz.
Thurman, S. (2001) Challenging Communication. Mental Health Care, 41, 203206.
Toogood, S. & Timlin, K. (1996) The functional assessment of challenging behaviour: a
comparison of informant-based, experimental and descriptive methods. Journal of
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 206222.
Willner, P. (2005) The effectiveness of psychotherapeutic interventions for people with
learning disabilities: a critical overview. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,
49, 7385.
World Health Organization (1993) The ICD10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural
Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research. WHO.
Xenitidis, K., Russell, A. Murphy, D. (2001) Management of people with challenging
behaviour. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 7, 109116.
Xenitidis, K., Barnes, J., White, J. (2005) Forensic psychotherapy for adults with learning
disabilities: an inpatient group-analytic group. Group Analysis, 38, 427438.
HL v. United Kingdom [2004].

Per Cardozo J. in Scloendorff v. Society of new York Hospital [1914] 211NY 125.
65
Appendix
Good
practice standards for service responses to
challenging behaviour self assessment checklist

This framework is designed to be used by senior professionals (clinicians,
social workers, managers, commissioners and those responsible for
inspection and review) who have responsibility within a defined area or
population for the provision of services to people with learning disabilities
whose behaviour severely challenges services. It is a self-assessment
checklist that should be used to establish the extent to which local processes
and practices reflect best practice as described in more detail elsewhere in
this document.
The standards should be reviewed against the current position and
practices that are followed by services. Users, advocates and carers should
also be involved in the review process. The standards apply to people living
in family homes, and health and social care provision (within the statutory
and independent sectors). They also apply when out-of-area placements
have been purchased by the relevant authorities.
The checklist should be reviewed in a multidisciplinary/multi-agency
setting with the aim of achieving a consensus view about how local services
compare with good practice standards. The team that carries out the review
of standards should ensure that they have the appropriate membership to
achieve a broad view of services. Different teams may be required to review
different subsets of standards as outlined in the table following the checklist.
A joint action plan should be developed to address any areas of need or to
build on current good practice.
66
Standard
1. Assessments and interventions
are delivered within the current
legal framework, by taking full
account of the care programme
approach, Mental Capacity Act,
Mental Health Act, Bournewood
ruling, Health and Safety at Work
Act, CSCI guidance etc.
Table 1 Standards for service provision

Current position
Green
Amber
There are clear written processes in place to ensure
Progress has been
that all practices meet current legal requirements.
made to fully
These will include:
achieve 46 of
these criteria.
people who require assessment or treatment
under the MHA have access to appropriate
local facilities
clear health and social care pathways
incorporate assessment of capacity, in line with
the Mental Capacity Act
a local advisory group with clear terms of
reference, to consider issues of best interest
for people who lack capacity
explicit multidisciplinary processes using
standard national policies (e.g. care programme
approach) is used
there is a published local adult protection
policy that service users, clinicians, carers can
access
Where people have out-of-area placements
purchased for them, the purchasing authority
regularly checks that the provider also achieves
these standards.
Red
Only 13 of these
criteria have been
achieved.
67
68
3. For each person who presents

severely challenging behaviour,
there is a written assessment
that takes account of relevant
factors about the person, their
environment and the behaviour.
Standard
2. A detailed risk assessment
is carried out with individuals
who present severely challenging
behaviour to ensure that
interventions are appropriately and
systematically targeted.
Table 1 Continued
individuals level of risk and risk factors

clarity about individual professionals
responsibilities and actions
a clear process for reviewing plans.
where people move between services, up-todate risk assessments are shared between
purchasers and providers.
There is an agreed multidisciplinary assessment
care pathway in place for all people whose
behaviour presents severe challenges. It will
include sufficient information to:
1. exclude/treat biological factors that contribute
to the persons behaviour
2. lead to a coherent formulation and, where
appropriate, a psychiatric diagnosis
3. lead to an intervention plan which fits the
person and their environment
4. provide a baseline so that the effectiveness
of any intervention can be subsequently
measured.
clarity about what triggers an assessment.

risk assessment informs a written management
plan that identifies:
Multidisciplinary
assessments are
in place for most
people, but there
are no agreed
care pathways
or standards in
place to ensure
that these are
systematically
carried out.
Current position
Green
Amber
There is an agreed written process for carrying out
Systematic risk
individualised risk assessments. It includes at least
assessments and
the following criteria:
management
plans are in place,
a multidisciplinary process.
with 35 of the
a statement of philosophy that addresses the
criteria being met.
least restrictive alternative.
There is a limited
multidisciplinary
approach to
assessments, with
most assessments
being uniprofessional.
Red
There are no formal
processes in place to
ensure a systematic
approach to risk
management.
5. There is clear evidence that

the intervention has personcentred approaches at its core.
Standard
4. There is a multifaceted
written formulation that takes
account of possible diagnosis,
psychological and relationship
factors. This formulation has
been developed from the
assessment, and leads to an
appropriate intervention.
Table 1 Continued
Current position
Green
Amber
For each person who presents severe challenges,
For some people who
there is an agreed written multidisciplinary
present severe chalformulation that includes each of the following
lenges the written
components:
formulation meets
these standards, but
hypotheses about how/why the behaviour
this is not the norm for
has developed
all people.
rationale for any psychiatric diagnosis
psychological and relationship factors
integration of behavioural, biological,
communication and environmental factors
hypotheses about how the behaviour is being
maintained
clear links between the formulation and
intervention.
In addition to any pharmacological, psychological,
Most people have
and/or behavioural interventions, each person
a person-centred
has a written person-centred plan that describes
plan in addition
how the person will be supported in ways that
to any treatment
address their rights, inclusion, choice and
but evidence of
independence. It will address the factors that
implementation is
contribute to the persons challenging behaviour.
limited.
There is evidence that the plans are implemented
by support teams.
There is little evi
dence of a personcentred plan at the
core of the persons
care.
Red
Generally, profession
als who assess
an individual will
develop their own
uni-professional
assessments, formulations or diagnoses,
and this will not be
coordinated into an
agreed multidisciplinary formulation.
69
70
Standard
6. Interventions are written
down, are derived from the
formulation and include:
primary preventative
strategies, and
early crisis intervention
strategies.
Table 1 Continued
Current position
Green
Amber
Each person has a written multidisciplinary care
Many intervention plans
plan that details strategies that include:
meet this standard
but there is not a
clarity about how the interventions are
systematic approach
derived from the formulation
to the development of
ways to enhance the persons quality of life
multidisciplinary written
p r o m o t i o n o f t h e l e a s t r e s t r i c t i ve
care plans that address
alternative
preventative and crisis
appropriate talking treatments can
intervention strategies.
be accessed when so indicated by the
formulation
potential triggers for the behaviour are
identified and addressed
clarity about how staff/carers should respond
to the target behaviour
a clear rationale for any psychoactive
medication, and the circumstances under
which p.r.n. medication is to be used
evidence of a skills-based, psychoeducational
or other positive strategy aimed to help the
person to manage their own behaviour
clarity about how any physical intervention or
restrictive practice should be used how and
when they will be reviewed
clarity that the interventions are informed by
the evidence-base of effectiveness.
Red
There is no process
to ensure that all
intervention plans
meet this standard,
and few do.
8. Each person whose behaviour

challenges services will have their
care coordinated within a clear
system.
Standard
7. There is clarity about how
crises will be managed, with clear
links to mental health and other
services when required.
Table 1 Continued
Current position
Green
Amber
There are clear written protocols for managing
Generally staff/
crises, including those that might occur out-ofcarers can access
hours in the persons usual place of residence or
some out-of-hours
work. These include:
crisis service, but
responses are not
processes for providing additional support to
comprehensive,
carers in the persons usual place of residence
and there are few
access to a responsive emergency and out-ofclear protocols
hours on-call assessment service
across different
access to mental health services, including inservices.
patient beds, if admission is required
register or database of people most at risk of
requiring out-of-hours support
written risk management plans (possibly as
part of care programme approach process),
identifying proactive actions to be taken to
support people identified as being at significant
risk of crises
a process to ensure effective communication
of crisis management plan to all appropriate
people.
There is a clear inter-agency care coordination
Elements of a
system that ensures that all people who present
multidisciplinary
severe challenges have:
care coordination
process are in
a named care coordinator
place, but it is
a written multidisciplinary care plan
not systematically
a system that ensures regular care reviews
available to
care programme approach process in place for
everyone who
those with additional mental health needs.
presents severe
Where out-of-area placements are purchased, the
challenges.
purchasing authority ensures that multidisciplinary
care is coordinated in the placement, and that there
is a named person in the purchasing authority who
is responsible for ensuring the quality of the care
received
Care planning
is generally uniprofessional, with
few multidisciplinary
coordinated pro
cesses.
Red
Responses to outof-hours crises are
patchy, with regular
disagreements
between services
about issues of
responsibility.
71
72
11. There is a system in place

across an authority for auditing the
standards for service provision that
are described in these guidelines.
10. The interventions will be fully

evaluated in terms of the behaviour
and the impact of the behaviour on
the persons quality of life and on
others.
Standard
9. Effective processes will be used
to ensure that everyone supporting
the person has the necessary skills
and knowledge to carry out the
intervention.
Table 1 Continued
The partnership/management board has a clear

process across the services that it has responsibility
for commissioning or purchasing, to ensure that all
these standards are being met.
There are
processes to
ensure that at
least some of
these standards
are being met
across all services
in an authority.
Current position
Green
Amber
Within an authority there is a multi-agency training
Individual
strategy that provides systematic competencyservice providers
based training for care staff. This is based on a
have their own
clear value-base that promotes positive strategies
challenging
and ensures that care staff who are required to
behaviour training
implement any physical interventions or restrictive
plans, but these
practices are appropriately trained.
are not systematic
There are processes to ensure that staff have the
in the way they
required skills.
are delivered or
evaluated.
There are processes in place to ensure that care
Most service
plans for people who present severe challenges
providers
are systematically evaluated across the authority
systematically
by managers or appropriate professionals. This will
evaluate the
include monitoring of:
quality and
effectiveness of
the impact of the intervention on the targeted
their interventions,
behaviour
but this is not
the impact on the persons quality of life
a universal
the use of physical interventions, restrictive
process within the
practices and psychotropic medications.
authority.
There is no
mechanism within an
authority to ensure
the service standards
are being met.
There are no
systematic
evaluation processes
across the authority.
Less than half of the
service providers
evaluate the quality
or effectiveness of
their interventions,
and even these
are generally
unsystematic.
Red
Training for care
staff is generally
uncoordinated, with
many untrained staff
supporting people
who present severe
challenges.
Commissioners purchase local support and housing

in which staff support is sufficiently skilled to
(a) provide activity and personal growth and
development for the individual and (b) prevent or
minimise challenging behaviour. This is for people:
with minimal, latent or emerging challenging
behaviour
presenting moderate levels of challenge
with the most complex or enduring problems.
People placed out-of-area (or their advocates,
where appropriate) can choose to move back to
local services which are at least as good as the
ones they are coming from.
15. Mechanisms are in place to

ensure that out-of-area placements
reflect individual choices.
Some people
have high levels
of support while
living in their own
home, but this is
not available to
everyone.
Up to 10%
of housing
and support
placements for
people fail each
year because
of problems
responding to
challenging
behaviour.
Some people
placed out-ofarea (or their
advocates, where
appropriate)
can choose to
move back to
local services but
others cannot
(whether due to
cost or quality).
Some people
presenting
challenges have
all these service
elements in place
but others do not
Current position
Amber
People presenting challenges have access to:

housing
support at home
meaningful day-time activity, education or
work
advocacy
generic and specialist healthcare.
All levels of support are available to people
challenging services within different housing and
service configurations, for example family home,
direct payments or personalised budgets as well as
residential homes.
Green
14. The competence of local

services within the statutory,
private and voluntary sectors,
matches the needs of the people
being supported.
13. The full range of service options

is available locally to everyone,
including those who present
challenges.
Standard
Availability of long-term
supports
12. People who present severely
challenging behaviour have equality
of access to a comprehensive range
of local social and health service
provision.
Table 1 Continued
People placed outof-area (or their

advocates, where
appropriate) have
no choice whether to
move back to their
local area or not.
More than 10%

of housing and
support placements
for people fail each
year because of
problems responding
to challenging
behaviour.
There is only token

availability of high
levels of support to
people living in their
own home.
Arrangements
typically exclude at
least one of these
elements
Red
73
74
18. Highly specialised professional

advice is available for people
who present the most complex
challenges.
Access to specialist help

17. Specialised multidisciplinary
professional advice is readily
available locally for everyone
presenting a challenge.
Standard
16. Services are commissioned
that ensure that family carers are
supported locally.
Table 1 Continued
Every person presenting a challenge has access to

a specialist assessment of their situation and their
behaviour which is multidisciplinary and which:
checks for psychiatric or other biomedical
causes
identifies possible functions of learned
behaviour
takes account of weaknesses or problems in
placement organisation
provides initial assessment within X weeks and
completed within Y weeks.
People presenting the most complex challenges
have access to assessment by highly specialised
experts in challenging behaviour (e.g. special
behaviour support teams), within a multidisciplinary
team.
Highly specialised
advice available
but only by
purchase from
out-of-area, or
uni-professionally.
More than 25% of

assessments are
incomplete or late.
Current position
Green
Amber
Local services are available to all families that
Local services
support members who present challenges
exclude people
(including the most serious challenges) such as
who present
challenges but
respite
fund alternatives
day activity, work or education.
out-of-area.
No highly specialised
professional advice
available locally.
More than 50% of

assessments are
incomplete or late.
Red
Local services
exclude people who
present challenges
without alternatives.
Individualisation
21. People presenting challenges
have person-centred plans.
20. Mental health services are

available to all.
Standard
19. Assessment and treatment
units are used appropriately.
Table 1 Continued
Each person presenting challenges has an effective

person-centred plan including a circle of support
beyond service personnel.
Local mental health services have taken the lead

in reviewing their provision to people with learning
disabilities, using the NIMHE greenlight toolkit.
Local mental health services are readily available to
people with learning disabilities who have mental
health problems.
Psychiatric care of people with learning disabilities
is an integrated part of local mental health services.
Only people
presenting
moderate levels of
challenge have an
effective personcentred plan
including a circle
of supportbeyond
service personnel.
Local mental
health services
only serve
some people
with learning
disabilities who
have mental
health problems.
Psychiatric
care of people
with learning
disabilities has
some links with
local mental
health services.
Current position
Green
Amber
Assessment and treatment units are only used for
More than 10%
this purpose. They use contracts that specify the
of residents in
specific purpose of the stay, its maximum length, a
assessment and
binding undertaking that the referring agency will
treatment units
provide local services at the end of this period and
have completed
a specification of how the gains made in the unit
treatment
will be transferred to and maintained in the local
(such as crisis
placement.
management
or emergency
placement) but
have not returned
to the community.
Only people
presenting the most
complex challenges
have an effective
person-centred plan
including a circle
of support beyond
service personnel.
Red
More than 25%
of residents in
assessment and
treatment units
have completed
treatment, or are
there for other
reasons (such as
crisis management
or emergency
placement), but have
not returned to the
community.
Local mental health
services routinely
exclude people with
learning disabilities
who have mental
health problems.
Psychiatric care
of people with
learning disabilities
is separate from
local mental health
services.
75
76
23. There is an agreed Partnership

Board (or other commissioning
body) strategy to promote local
services for people who present
severe challenges.
Standard
22. Commissioners and
professionals have effective systems
to review everyone who is out-ofarea or is likely to be at risk of their
local service breaking down.
Table 1 Continued
Current position
Green
Amber
There is a process agreed between commissioners
There is some
and professionals that ensures:
knowledge about
the ongoing
knowledge about the needs of, and plans for,
appropriateness
everyone who is placed out-of-area
of out-of-area
review system for the ongoing appropriateness
placements, and
of out-of-area placements for each person
some planning
knowledge about people who live locally but
to address
are most at risk of placement breaking down
inadequacies of
contingency plans available for those most at
placements.
risk of local placement breaking down.
Local placement
breakdown
planning is in place
for a few people.
Partnership Board has an agreed strategy that
Multi-agency
addresses all the standards outlined in this
strategies are in
document.
place to meet most
standards outlined
in this document.
There is an agreed
process to address
the others.
Agreement has been

reached on how to
achieve some of
these standards.
Red
There is only limited
knowledge about
people who are
placed out-of-area,
and few active
systems are in place
to prevent local
service breakdown.
Who
will be involved in reviewing the standards?

The purpose of the chart illustrated in Table 2 is to offer suggestions as to
the possible composition of teams that will be involved in reviewing local
standards. Different review teams may be required to audit different subsets
of standards. The completed table is not intended to be prescriptive, and
local circumstances will dictate who should be involved (the last column can
be used as a local checklist).
77
78
1. Legal
framework
2. Risk
assessment
3. Written
assessment
4. Written
formulation
5. Personcentred
approaches
6. Written
intervention
plan
7. Crisis
management
8. Care
coordination
9. Trained
support staff
10. Evaluate
outcomes
11. Auditing of
standards
12. Equality of
access to local
provision
13. Full range
of services
14.
Competence
of services
matches
peoples need
Practitioners
in CLDTs
Specialist
challenging
behaviour
team
Standard
Specialist
residential
providers
Hospitals
including
ATUs
Table 2 Team members who might be involved in reviewing different standards
Social
services
care
managers
?
?
Inspection
teams
Commissioners
Users/
carers
Other
Specialist
challenging
behaviour
team
Practitioners
in CLDTs
Specialist
residential
providers
Hospitals
including
ATUs
Social
services
care
managers
15. Out-of-area
x
x
x
x
placements
reflect
individual
choice
16.
Commissioned
services
support people
locally
17. Access
to local MD
specialised
advice
18. Access
to highly
specialised
advice
19. Appropriate
x
x
use of ATUs
20. Availability
x
of mental
health services
21. Person
centred plans
22. Review of
x
x
x
x
people out-ofarea
23. Agreed
commissioning
strategy
Composition of team reviewing standards ..
Standards to be reviewed
Coordinator responsible for carrying out review
Standard
Table 2 Team members who might be involved in reviewing different standards
Users/
carers
Inspection
teams
Commissioners
Other
79

Challenging Behaviour - A Unified Approach PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenging Behaviour - A Unified Approach PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenging Behaviour - A Unified Approach PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Challenging behaviour:

Clinical and service guidelines for supporting people

College Report CR144

Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Psychological

Instead of responding to the person we typically react to the

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Membership of working group

Purpose of this report

Definitions and scope

Focusing on the person

Appendix: Good practice standards

Members of the working group

Dr Roger Banks (co-chair, editor) Royal College of Psychiatrists

SW1X 8PG, email: rbanks@rcpsych.ac.uk

Dr Alick Bush (co-chair, editor) British Psychological Society

Psychology Services, St Georges Community Health Centre, Winter Street,

Royal College of Psychiatrists

Purpose of this report