ICM IN DISCUSSION WITH GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ABOUT CONTRADICTORY GUIDANCE FOR P. I. SKILLS TRAINING IN LEARNING DISABILITIES IN HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE SECTOR

The ICM has made a formal approach the Department of Health, Department for Education & Skills and the Commission for Social Care Inspection about the contradictory guidance given out about the nature and accreditation of physical intervention training in a learning disability setting. The contradiction has come to light through members citing instances where they have been unable to provide training or advice in these environments for not having the right accreditation. Members have been told by CSCI inspectors that they must be BILD accredited, yet CSCI state that ‘CSCI does not recommend or hold accreditation for training organisations’. 

The ICM has no objection to the BILD accreditation scheme or any other suitable accreditation as long as it meets the standards required. A meeting with the Department of Health and BILD (report due shortly) was held in December and our proposal is motivated by the stipulations made by organisations within the health and social care sector that all training and instruction in relation to learning difficulties must be BILD accredited. Furthermore, the ICM has encountered the same issue in relation to many more non-learning disabilities aspects of the health and social care sectors.

We believe that there is a confusion brought on by the apparent contradictions in the 2002 Department for Education & Skills and Department of Health’s “Guidance on the Use of Restrictive Physical Interventions for Staff Working with Children and Adults who Display Extreme Behaviour in Association with Learning Disability and/or Autistic Spectrum Disorders “ which informs the various CSCI Guidances.

For example: in the Guidance Log for Children's Homes, 22.2, Para 3 it states:

“Restraint training does not need to be accredited with the British Institute of Learning Disabilities to be used by providers, although any technique used must, of course, not breach the Regulations and Standards. CSCI does not (and will not) endorse any particular methods of restraint for legal reasons.”

Our members have come across CSCI inspectors that stipulate that any training in this area must be BILD accredited. Furthermore, in the above mentioned DfES/DoH Guidance, which informs the Guidance Log for Childrens’ Homes:

“The Department of Health and Department for Education & Skills are working with BILD, and in collaboration with other agencies, to establish an accreditation scheme for those offering training on physical interventions for learning disability and education services.” (13. Staff Training/13.3/page 22) 


“The expectation is that training should normally be provided by trainers who are accredited under the BILD Code of Practice on Training Staff in the Use of Physical Interventions.” (14. Implementation/14.1/bullet point 5/page 23) 


In another guidance entitled ‘Care and Control – a tool kit to support the West Midlands SEN Partnership in development of a shared approach to fulfilling LEA duty of care’ – issued by the West Midlands SEN Regional Partnership, it too mentions BILD and the ‘team teach’ approach as being a preferred route:

• “The British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) accreditation scheme is the only one currently available in order to ‘kite-mark’ courses. It is important to have within one’s capacity a wide range of externally accredited trainers.

On the other hand, it is simpler to monitor training when it is provided by a single training organisation. An appropriate compromise is to offer the scope for choice, so that schools feel empowered and at the same time, to build up capacity with a ‘preferred’ training organisation, this is called the ‘team teach’ approach.”

The above document also provides policy document templates for schools with a prepared statement that endorses BILD, and puts Team-Teach, a commercially driven organisation, at the forefront of these developments. The document also provides guidance on physical skills that have been criticised by the Youth Justice Board. 

To Summarise….:

The idea that BILD is the only accreditation scheme recognised by various government departments is a self perpetuating myth. If there is a so called ‘national standard’ from where BILD get their mandate, then the ICM would like to see it so it can ensure that its standards comply. 

The ICM attended a meeting with the National Children’s Burea on a DfES sponsored discussion day, (attended by service purchasers, managers and care home owners and providers) and one of the overriding themes was the lack of guidance on training standards. Many recognised that the current landscape regarding training was confusing, with organisations claiming to be the recognised body, or offer the recognised form(s) of training for the sector, with over 70 different forms of training cited.

The ICM takes the view that accreditation and auditing of conflict management trainers, who have sector specific knowledge, tested track record and ability, as well as a scheme that will validate previous learning - alongside BILD, can help to regulate conflict management trainers all under one umbrella.

With this in mind the ICM is seeking greater clarification on this for its members, but also, as a bona-fide Institute set up specifically with a remit to set standards in preventing work-related violence, aggression and challenging behaviour, we are seeking to be recognised as one of the other bodies that can provide standards that do not breach accepted regulations and standards and would be willing to find a common ground with CSCI, DfES, BILD, and others, in order that this could be achieved. If everyone sang from the same hymn sheet, the picture would be less confusing.