There are few areas within our society that carry more risk than for private citizens (not sworn police officers) restricting another person’s personal liberty. The risks are manifested from a variety of sources and can range in severity from the risk of staff injury to jail sentences, common law claims and, worst case scenario, the death of the person being restrained.

Our detractors have at times accused us of being pro-restraint. Nothing could be further from the truth. Good prevention strategies such as changed work practices, responsible service of alcohol, suitable staffing levels, CPTED, better communication skills and better clinical skills all play a vital role in reducing risk and are much better options than physical restraint. Unfortunately physical intevention is still sometimes required in order to prevent a person harming themselves or others but we strongly believe that this must be a last resort when all other options are unsuitable (or have already failed). We are however very much pro-proper restraint techniques and practice. simply put, if it must be done, it must be done properly with due regard to the risks, the environment, the person and the team.

There are a number of concomitant issues at play in this highly technical area. These include:

Staff are often confused about what their powers (or distinct lack of powers) mean, particularly if directed to do something by a supervisor or manager. This occurs commonly in healthcare (i.e. that person can’t leave because they need treatment etc), retail (i.e. hold on to this shoplifter), hospitality (i.e. this patron has not paid for their meal) and security (i.e. this person has committed a serious assault). People are generally confused about what deprivation of liberty is and what the possible consequences are.

The techniques can be specifically tailored to the workplace and we have programs for:

Techniques and tactics covered are legally defensible and designed to minimise harm to the specified target group based on their special physiological needs. The training is presented from an OH&S perspective and looks at:

Our restraint related death training package can be delivered as a ‘stand alone’ module. This material recently underwent a stringent literature review and international benchmarking. As a result we have identified over 15 causal factors that are strongly correlated to deaths during, or shortly after, restraint. Many trainers are still claiming that prone position and positional asphyxia are the primary mechanisms in a restraint related death. Our research on behalf of Queensland Health has demonstrated that this is a gross oversimplification of the facts and increases the risks of injury to the workers conducting the restraint, and to the restraint subject.

Candidates who successfully complete assessments may obtain a Nationally Recognised Statement of Attainment in one or more of the following units: