Physical Intervention in Schools – One Year Review of Guidance

Independent and grant-aided schools

There were only 9 responses covering these school types; 7 from independent schools and 2 from grant-aided schools. Note that the number of responses from these school types are low and do not represent all independent and grant-aided schools in Scotland. The low number of responses means a smaller number of responses will have a large influence on the percentages therefore the number of responses has been presented here. In addition, no incidents of restraint have been recorded in a small number of schools so some of the questions are not applicable to them.

Local Policies and Alignment with National Guidance

Two thirds of respondents (6) reported that their school or local authority currently has a policy on the use of physical intervention in schools, while one third (3) did not. Of those with a policy in place, 4 indicated that it had already been updated to reflect the national guidance published in November 2024, with the remaining 2 reporting that updates were underway.

Among the 4 who had updated their policy, 2 had updated before November 2024 and 2 had completed afterwards.

All bar one of those with a policy confirmed that definitions of restraint, physical restraint, mechanical restraint and seclusion from the national guidance had been included in their policy.

Four Respondents reported using additional definitions from organisations such as the Care Inspectorate or Mental Welfare Commission. Of those, all but one indicated that different sets of definitions aligned well. No respondents expressed concerns about poor alignment.

Changes in Practice Since November 2024

The majority of respondents believed that some improvement in practice had occurred since the national guidance was published, with 5 reporting significant or some improvement. No respondents indicated any worsening of practice.

Supportiveness and Effectiveness of the Guidance

Independent and grant-aided school respondents were asked to assess the impact of the guidance in raising awareness of restraint and seclusion. Seven respondents found the guidance supportive. No respondents found the guidance unhelpful.

Views on effectiveness in reducing the use of restraint and seclusion were more mixed. While 3 considered the guidance very or somewhat effective, the majority (5 respondents) believed it was neither effective not ineffective and 1 believed it was ineffective.

Respondents identified definitions (5 respondents), training advice (4 respondents), and recording and monitoring guidance (4 respondents) as the most helpful aspects.

Areas suggested for strengthening included training advice (5 respondents), with individual respondents identifying prevention advice, safeguards and recording and monitoring guidance.

Impact on Learning Environment and Workload

Respondents generally reported modest impacts on learning and working environments. Four perceived a positive impact on the learning environment, while 5 reported no impact. None reported negative impacts.

The majority (7 respondents) indicated no impact on the workload of teachers and staff, while one reported a negative impact and one reported a positive impact.

Observed Practice Changes

Just over half of respondents (5) observed changes in practice since the guidance was published, while 3 had not seen changes and 1 didn’t know.

Of the 5 that answered that they observed changes:

• all reported increased use of de-escalation;
• 4 noted improved awareness of restraint;
• 2 identified improved recording; and
• 2 identified improved monitoring.

Data Recording and Monitoring

Respondents represented a range of sectors: 5 were primary schools, 5 were secondary schools and 4 were special schools (some covered multiple sectors).

Only 4 respondents reported using the standard dataset included in the 2024 guidance. Of them, all reported that additional support needs were being recorded, and all but one reported that protected characteristics were also being recorded.

Frequency of monitoring varied widely, with schools reporting daily up to termly monitoring cycles.

Monitoring by protected characteristic was undertaken in 4 schools. Of the 5 that didn’t, no respondents reported known plans to examine or address gaps in this area.

Monitoring by additional support need was more common, with 7 respondents confirming this was taking place. Of the 2 that didn’t, neither reported known plans to examine or address gaps in this area.

Parental Reporting

Most (7) independent and grant-aided school respondents reported that parents, carers and social work were notified of incidents in line with the 2024 guidance 100% of the time.

Post-Incident Support and Learning

Post-incident support was widely reported. Seven school respondents confirmed that support was provided to children and young people, with 8 confirming support to staff. Post-incident learning followed the same patterns.

Timeframes were generally prompt. For children and young people, 5 respondents indicated that support and learning occurred within one week; for staff, this was true for 6 responding schools.

Training

Six responding schools reported that staff training had been provided to support implementation of the guidance:

• all had received de-escalation training,
• all but one had training in restraint,
• 4 had training related to additional support needs,
• 3 had recording training, and
• 3 identified other types of training.

Training availability varied, with 5 respondents stating that training was available to all staff and 2 indicating that it was not.

5 respondents reported receiving restraint training, and all of these confirmed that this training was accredited as meeting RRN standards.

Professional Learning Needs

Five responding schools expressed a need for further professional learning on this topic. Three identified de-escalation and recording as priority areas, 2 highlighted ASN related training and 1 identified restraint. All indicated that further training was required for all staff.