Physical Intervention in Schools – One Year Review of Guidance

Local authority responses

We asked a series of questions for Local Authorities to answer, requesting one return for each authority. Firstly, around feedback on the implementation of the ‘Physical intervention in schools national guidance’. We also asked questions on Data, Recording and Monitoring, Post Incident Support and Training.

30 out of the 32 Scottish Local Authorities submitted a return, but not all responded to every question, so the percentages presented here are for those who answered the question and not the total number of local authorities.

Local Policies and Alignment with National Guidance

Almost all respondents (93%, 28 respondents) reported that their local authority currently has a policy on the use of physical intervention in schools. 7% (2 respondents) didn’t know. Of those with a policy in place, 64% indicated that the policy had already been updated to reflect the national guidance published in November 2024, while the remaining 36% stated that updates were currently underway.

Of those who had already updated their policy (18 responses), the majority (94%) confirmed that this work took place after the publication of the national guidance. One respondent updated their policy before November 2024.

In terms of content alignment out of the 28 who have a policy in place, 82% of respondents reported that the national definitions of restraint, physical restraint, mechanical restraint and seclusion included within the 2024 guidance had been incorporated into local policy. However, 14% said these definitions had not been included, and 4% did not know.

When asked whether their schools also take into account other definitions (e.g., from the Care Inspectorate or Mental Welfare Commission), 33% of respondents said yes, while 50% did not. Among the 10 that answered yes, all but one reported that the different sets of definitions aligned well or very well.

Changes in Practice Since Publication

Respondents were asked to reflect on changes in practice since November 2024. While none reported significant improvement or deterioration, 70% indicated that some improvement had taken place, and 30% reported no change.

When estimating implementation across sectors within their local authority, respondents suggested good uptake across school types. Around half believed that 100% of primary and secondary schools had implemented the guidance, with almost three-quarters reporting 100% implementation across special schools.

Usefulness and Impact of the Guidance

The national guidance was viewed as supportive in raising awareness of restraint and seclusion. 87% described it as very or somewhat supportive. One local authority considered it very unhelpful.

In relation to effectiveness, 67% of local authority respondents regarded the guidance as very or somewhat effective in reducing the use of restraint and seclusion, while 23% perceived no clear impact and 10% believed it was ineffective.

Respondents identified the most helpful elements of the guidance as:

• definitions (77%),
• recording, reporting and monitoring advice (50%),
• post incident reporting advice (47%), and
• safeguards (40%).

Areas identified for strengthening included training advice (60%), prevention advice (33%), recording and monitoring guidance (23%) and safeguards (20%).

Impact on Learning Environment and Workload

Half of local authority respondents (50%) reported that the guidance had had a positive impact on the learning environment and staff working conditions. Around 43% noted no impact, while 7% reported negative impact.

Workload impacts varied. While 63% reported no change in workload, one third (33%) indicated that workload had increased as a result of implementing the guidance.

Observed Changes in Practice

Out of the 30 received responses, a majority (63%) reported observing changes in practice since publication of the guidance. Of these:

• 74% reported improved monitoring practices,
• 63% reported improved recording,
• 58% reported improved awareness of restraint, and
• 53% reported increased use of deescalation techniques.

Data Recording and Monitoring

Data processes showed significant variation across schools:

• Only 23% reported using the standard dataset included in the 2024 guidance.
• 40% were not using it, and 37% didn’t know.

Barriers to using the dataset included system issues, outdated local guidance, lack of training and resource constraints.

Among the 7 local authorities that reported using the standard dataset:

• 100% confirmed that additional support needs were being recorded and,
• 57% recorded protected characteristics.

Monitoring frequency amongst the 30 respondents ranged from daily (10%) to monthly (27%), with a large proportion (43%) indicating “other” monitoring patterns.

Monitoring by protected characteristic was undertaken in 23% of schools, and monitoring by additional support need in 67%. Of those that don’t currently monitor by protected characteristic or additional support need, the majority indicated plans to address gaps in these areas.

Parental Reporting

Schools were asked about compliance with the requirement to notify parents, carers and social work (where relevant) of incidents within the school day or within 24 hours in exceptional circumstances. Half of all local authority respondents reported notifying families of incidents in line with the 2024 guidance 100% of the time, with a further 13% reporting notification in over 75% of incidents. One third (33%) did not know the level of compliance.

Post Incident Support and Learning

Most local authority respondents confirmed that post incident support is provided:

• 73% for children and young people, and
• 83% for staff.

Post incident learning practices were also widely in place, with 70% confirming they occur for children and young people and 83% for staff. The majority indicated that these processes take place within one week.

Training

Training availability was reported to be high amongst all 30 local authorities, with 80% stating that training was available to all staff who wished to undertake it.

Training uptake was strong with 21 local authorities (70%) responding that staff training has been undertaken to support implementation. Among these:

• 100% had received de-escalation training,
• 86% ASN related training,
• 76% recording training, and
• 71% restraint training.

All but one of the 23 local authorities whose schools received restraint training confirmed that their training was certified as meeting the Restraint Reduction Network (RRN) training standards.

Demand for further professional learning remains significant, with 73% identifying ongoing need.

Of those, specific areas identified include de-escalation (77%), recording (73%), ASN related learning (64%) and restraint (45%). Most respondents (82%) stated that additional learning is required for all staff, with some indicating specific or additional groups.