The Conflict Resolution Training Blog » Conflict Resolution

Restraint techniques that could kill

Darren Good — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:12:33 +0000

It’s likely that many of the readers of my blog will know the dangers of using restraint techniques already. Most experts in the field would argue that used properly the restraint of an individual is safe for both the detainee and the person applying the restraint. That is the point after all. I have always been of the view that physical restraint whenever it is used always carries dangers for all parties and recent published research suggest the same. A study published in Medicine, Science and the Law (a forensic medicine publication) concluded that forcing a detainee to bend over while seated can lead to death because the hold reduces lung capacity significantly.

There is a picture of the hold if you click here. This is a hold you find being used potentially in mental health situations or private security organisations. So for example it may be used on an aircraft.

The BBC ran a story last week connecting this research the death of Jimmy Mubenga, 46, who died not long after being restrained on his deportation flight out of Heathrow last year. Post-mortem examinations were inconclusive and three security guards employed by the escorting security organisation have been arrested and put on bail.

As I understand it the research involved forty volunteers who were put in a seated position and lent forward so their faces were close to their lap. They were then held in that position. The research suggested that it was the position rather than any force applied that was the main problem as the position restricted lung capacity and air flow. This would be worsened if your detainee was over-weight. The researchers expressed concerns that detainees in this hold may struggle to breathe but that their struggling could be misinterpreted by the enforcer who may push them lower into the forward position, making breathing even more difficult. I’m sure you get the picture. It’s a terrible image and highlights the challenges of security personnel ever more.

If you are in the security profession either as a security officer or as the CEO please take note. There are many good courses out there which will keep you and the general public safe and well. Invest your time and money wisely…you should look for a course that will cover these key elements:

ü Differentiates between holding, escorting and restraining and non-harmful seated restraint techniques and how to apply them.

ü Demonstrates and explains how to gradually de-escalate and relax a restraint to allow the subject being restrained to regain self-control.

ü Explores the risks associated with alcohol and drugs, knives and other forms of edged weapons in relation to the use of physical restraint.

ü Investigates the difference between non-harmful methods of control and more restrictive methods of control and when the use of such methods would be considered appropriate.

ü Explores all legal aspects of physical restraint and particularly that as it relates to Reasonable Force and Health and Safety.

ü Provides you with the physical skills required to handle potentially violent situations.

ü Provides you with the physical skills to safely control others whilst being compliant with legislation.

Possibly Related Posts:

Company Directors charged under Corporate Manslaughter Act

Darren Good — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:24:25 +0000

I’ve been reading a few blogs recently about Lion Steel Ltd.who are the second company to be charged under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 since its implementation. This is a real wake up call for Company Directors to sit up and take notice of staff safety as they will be held to account.

The Greater Manchester Police have charged the storage manufacturing company with corporate manslaughter as a result of the death of an employee when he fell through a fragile plastic roof panel on an industrial estate. I have also read that the company is charged under section 2 and 33 of the Health and Safety Work Acts 1974 (HSWA) for failing to ensure the safety at work of its employees.

So it is that the three directors are each accused of manslaughter by gross negligence under section 37 of the HSWA for failing to ensure the safety at work of their employees.

Notwithstanding the terrible tragedy of the dealth of a man I am pleased to see that the Corporate Manslaughter Act is being used and has not just been a paper exercise. I believe employers should look upon this act as an opportunity to really look at the personal safety of their employees. Equally employees should use this Act as a way to ensure they are getting everything they are entitled to receive to enable them to their jobs safely and effectively. This will include the environment they work in, the equipment used and the quality and frequency of the training they receive.

This applies to all types of workplace, not just where there are obvious risks such as in manufacturing or building services but also where personal safety could be an issue due to staff members interactions with the general public. The NHS for example, often reports violence from patients towards their staff, and this not always from the mentally unstable. So here we have a caring profession….not somewhere you would automatically think of as an environment in need of personal safety for its staff…that in reality needs to and in many cases does, provide personal safety training for it’s staff.

The first hearing for Lion Steel Ltd. Will take place on 2^nd August.

Possibly Related Posts:

Doorstaff arrested on suspicion of murder

Darren Good — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:37:46 +0000

I want to share with you a tragic and ongoing situation that raises a number of interesting points for me around physical intervention strategies when dealing with conflict. The situation concerns four door security men from a nightspot in Southend who have recently been arrested on supicion of the murder of Reece Lamude. Mr Lamude, 37, was rushed to hospital following an altercation with the four door supervisors but hospital staff were uable to save him and he died early that morning. The post-mortum examination revealed that Mr Lamude had sustained neck injuries, possibly as a result of the incident.

This case is of interest to me because it raises…and not for the first time…the issue of the use of reasonable force when dealing with conflict situations. It is as ever a highly sensitive area and without acurate eye witness accounts or cctv footage it may be impossible to unpick what happened on that night. The four securaity guards in question are not the only ones who should be called to question here as their employers also have a part to play. Did their employers ensure that they had recieved all the required and appropriate training?

For those of you that don’t know all door supervisors should hold an SIA licence.That gives them a basic knowledge to permit them to be legally employed as a security guard. But it’s a bit like getting your drivers licence. You don’t get your licence and then start racing formula one cars and so it is the case with security guards of busy nightspots.

Employers of such venues should know that additonal physical intervention and conflict management training is more than likely necessary if their venue is likely to attract situations of violence and aggression. Failure on their part to supply this is a breach, by them, of the Health and Safety Act. So they too have a part to play.

Now none of this helps the tragedy of Reece Lamude’s situation and the courts will decide the outcome of that later in the year. But I would like to hope that cases like this raise the importance to employers to provide appropriate training to their staff and also for employees to demand appropriate training if they believe they are at risk. It will all go along way to making it safer for us all whether we are an employee or a member of the public like Reece.

Possibly Related Posts:

Practical approaches to protecting yourself

Darren Good — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:36:35 +0000

The News of the World scandal has dominated the press this week and served to warn us just how difficult personal privacy is and yet it’s something we all take as a personal right. We all do as much as we can to protect ourselves and our children from unwanted interventions ….we set up spam filters and firewalls on our PCs for example. Those of you with kids will no doubt have set limitations on what they can and can’t do on their computers/iphones but I wonder how many of us remember to also remind them of the basics of personal safety?

This thought struck me as I was sat in a parents meeting at school this week. The Head spoke at length about the dangers of the internet, reminded us about the legal age of Facebook (13 by the way) and shared with us the school rules on internet usage. All great stuff don’t get me wrong but what about the..dare I say it..old fashioned stuff…they used to call it ‘stanger danger’ but I call it protecting youself…in otherwords self-defence.

So your average 13 year old knows how to detect a suspicious Facebook friend request but can they defend themselves from a variety of grabs? Navigating their way around youtube, twitter and myspace is second nature but how quickly can they work out the quickest possible escape route if confronted?

Can you see my point? Here are my quick personal safety tips that are equally applicable to children and adults.

Be aware. Particulary when you are close to home. Research suggests that we ‘let our guard down’ when we are in familiar territory.
Look for incongruencies. E.g someone asking for the time if they have a watch on. Someone asking directions but not looking at you when you tell them. Trust your instincts…if something doesn’t seem quite right walk away.
Look for escape routes. If a car is following you and you are on foot then turn around forcing it to do a difficult (and conspicious) u-turn.
Be careful of short-cuts. Are they obscured from view? Can someone easily hide along the route? Never go alone or better still take the longer route home.
Carry a personal alarm. Just pop one in your pocket. It’s worth spending a little extra to get one that’s at least 136db.

Possibly Related Posts:

Novak Djokovic Positive Emotional State

Darren Good — Tue, 05 Jul 2011 22:45:50 +0000

This week I have been working on a revision to one of my training modules to reflect a client’s need and having enjoyed a spectacular start to the weekend with the men’s final at Wimbledon…I have been prompted to think about positive emotional control in the most extreme situations of stress and tension.

Now drawing sporting analogies to business or work scenarios is, in my book, a dangerous thing. At best you end up sounding pompous and at worst you just end up dragging up a load of old clichés. Don’t get me wrong I’ve had the privilege of hearing several sportsmen and women talk about their profession and draw links to positive thinking in the everyday and business world around us. Done well you can see where they’re coming from and yes, draw relevant parallels to your own life. Done badly you’re left thinking well…is preparing for my next important client meeting really the same as the training programme for an Olympic athlete?

But back to Wimbledon and what prompted my thoughts….I’ve been focusing on Emotional State Control this week for a client this is how being in control of your emotions is essential to manage conflict situations effectively. So understanding your triggers for fear and/or loss of emotional control are part of the process of learning how to control them so that no matter what situation you are in, whether you feel threatened or angered yourself, you always retain control of your emotions. This then supports you in being a really good communicator (see my P.O.L.I.T.E model on my website for more information). So I was watching Novak Djokovic and waiting to see if he would lose his temper like he did in the semi’s against Baghdatis where he smashed his racket three times in a rage. I was thinking surely it must be obvious to see it coming…here he is centre stage, immense pressure, everything riding on the match….could I see it either coming or him trying to control it? There are clues….facial expressions, where the eyes focus, breathing techniques…but put yourself in an everyday situation without the benefits of a camera close up and an obviously extreme situation and can you read the clues as easily?

It’s difficult which is why being in control of your own emotional state is so important so that if you suddenly find yourself in a situation with conflict or violence you are in control of your emotions and are ready to react effectively. You can anchor an emotional state by using one of your visual, auditory or kinesthetic cues. This is line with the NLP way of thinking. For instance, playing a certain type of music that makes you feel a certain way is an example of an auditory anchor but. This may be more difficult if a situation unexpectedly confronts you, but with practice you can become quicker at gaining control. If you are clever you can stack anchors to make it a really powerful exercise. All you need to do is think about a time when you felt good, the emotional state you were in, the confidence, control and calmness you felt and then pull on that memory to anchor control of your emotions.
All easier said than done of course which is why practice makes perfect or as I like to think..practice makes permanent – if you practice something wrong you can get good at doing it wrong. Which is one unarguable lesson every business practice can learn from the sporting world.

Possibly Related Posts:

Everyday conflict management

Darren Good — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 13:41:40 +0000

I was doing a fun run with my 14 year old son at the weekend and it reminded me how ever present the potential for conflict is. It started with the usual heated debate with my wife as we were rushing out the door of ‘where are the car keys’ …quickly diffused by son number two reminding us that we were walking.
Potential conflict removed I was soon rewarding myself for making the effort to leave early in order to walk to as I saw the massive queue to get parked. My , dare I admit it, slightly smug mood was quickly distracted by the sound of a car horn being furious beeping and a man jumping out of his car to hurl abuse at the car behind him. I say car, not person because I don’t actually think he was seeking to get into a one-on-one argument he just responded to the ‘trigger’ of the car horn and it clearly was the last straw for him that morning. There were two adults in the front of the car…a ..shall we say quite large gentleman driving and I’m guessing his mum or Grandmother to the two red-faced kids in the back seats who, as you can imagine, just wanted the ground to swallow them up with embarrassment. Whether she knew what she was doing or not I’ll never know but as the man got out of his car to face his aggressor this senior lady nimbly positioned herself between the two and smiling at the abuse hurling man said “lovely day for it” clearly not expecting this response the abuse man was left to agree it was.
What a fantastic open question, completely at odds with the situation and friendly in intention.
I don’t know what happened after that because, as my wife reminded me, it’s rude to stare but as I heard no more shouting and the cars moved slowly on I can assume all was resolved.
So…..as I was saying I was reminded of the ever present potential for conflict. Intentionally or otherwise the woman in question diffused an aggressive situation by positive body language and an open and unexpected question that by its very nature united them. It was a lovely day for “it” and “it” was the fun run with the kids. She established common ground and a shared purpose. She positioned herself alongside the ‘aggressor’ and showed she was willing to listen. Essentially she demonstrated a number of key communication skills to manage conflict situations that I summarise in my acronym P.O.L.I.T.E. where ‘P’ is for position, ‘O’ observation, ‘L’ listen, ‘I’ intuition, ‘T’ talk and ‘E’ emotional state. I’d even go as far as to say it was almost text book perfect.

Possibly Related Posts:

Can e-learning courses help in conflict resolution? The pros and cons

Darren Good — Fri, 14 May 2010 07:22:15 +0000

In my opinion, e-learning does have a place in Conflict Resolution Training but its not the panacea. At GoodSense we do offer a number of e-learning courses which help fill a gap and give someone a good initial grounding in conflict resolution.

To be honest it is a tool that can help with training but it’s not the magic bullet that will solve all of your training problems. However, that said it can help save money, time, resources and of course the environment – so it does have some genuine benefits.

I have pulled together a list of pros and cons of e-learning and listed them below, I have also borrowed some great points from the e-learning Guru, have a read and see what you think:

Pros

You can get a lot of material background and guidance into documents which people can read in their own time. Materials that will help a delegate hit the ground running when they come on a blended solution training course. They already have background knowledge and this is far better than starting from scratch.
It’s cost effective to use it.
Learning times reduced, an average of 40 to 60 percent, as found by Brandon Hall (Web-based Training Cookbook, 1997, p. 108).
Increased retention and application to the job averages an increase of 25 percent over traditional methods, according to an independent study by J.D. Fletcher (Multimedia Review, Spring 1991, pp.33-42).
You can buy several different courses in bulk.
It’s environmentally friendly.
It comes within a learning management system.
Proof of completion and certification, essential elements of training initiatives, can be automated. So the delegate can print off their own certificates if they so wish– again environmentally friendly.
Flexibility – the delegate can choose their own place and time to train.
The delegate can go into far more detail – by simply clicking on links in the copy.
The end of each section often has a quiz to test the delegate’s knowledge and understanding.
It saves on backfill costs (which are hidden and hardly ever measured within the public sector). This is when someone has to be paid where the other person goes off site to do the training.
The delegate can stop in the middle of the training and pick it up when they want.
Self-pacing for slow or quick learners reduces the stress of training and increases the delegates satisfaction.
It can be more engaging as it using a variety of methods to capture the imagination of the delegate.

Cons

Organisational mindset – there can be reluctance in some organisations to embrace new training methods.
Not having the necessary IT kit that can do the job (our courses use flash for instance – so not having flash on your computer could cause problems).
People not being organised or motivated to get the job completed when using e-learning they are doing it at their own pace, so it could take forever.
It isn’t accredited and there is no industry standard.
There is usually an up-front investment required, so budgets and cash flows often need to be negotiated to accommodate this.
Technology skill levels of the learners – if they can’t use a computer this will cause the trainer real issues.
Portability of training has become a strength of e-learning with the proliferation of network linking points, notebook computers, PDAs, and mobile phones, but still does not rival that of printed workbooks or reference material.
Reduced social and cultural interaction can be a drawback. The impersonality, suppression of communication mechanisms such as body language, and elimination of peer-to-peer learning that are part of this potential disadvantage are lessening with advances in communications technologies.
You can’t really learn self defence techniques using a computer. Practical application is far better in my opinion.

If e-learning is used in a blended approach, it will prepare the student by building up their general knowledge and guidance around the subject. If the delegate understands the statistics and industry issues etc, we can then take them through much more advanced strategies. This will give them a much higher level of training and give the employer a higher skilled individual.

[tweetmeme only_single="false"]

Possibly Related Posts:

Best practice in conflict resolution strategies from my trip to Holland

Darren Good — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:52:33 +0000

I was away at the European Network of Trainers in the Management of Aggression (ENTMA) conference in Amsterdam a couple of weeks ago and whilst I was there I saw lots of demonstrations and examples of how other countries combat conflict resolution. I was really impressed with the quality of training on offer but the one presentation that really impressed me was one from the Swiss.

In Switzerland they used the strategy that I think we should all use when it comes to conflict resolution.

The Swiss came from a very low base of no training and no conflict resolution solution at all, so they went from nothing to one of the best solutions in Europe by following these simple steps.

This particular case study they cited was on a local hospital where they surveyed a large number of people 1,500, in fact it was everybody in the hospital that they interviewed either directly or indirectly.

The interviewers asked them what caused the conflict, what time did it happen and where did occur? They even asked them to clarify which age groups were more likely to cause trouble. Their findings identified that on the whole it was caused by the young and elderly and bizarrely not the middle aged.

They also asked the interviewees what the patient was doing when the conflict occurred.

All of the data was collated and they worked out an exact picture of everything. Then when they knew everything about the conflicts they brought in some experts on conflict resolution to teach the latest models/strategy techniques to groups of staff.

Once they had taught the staff some techniques they then brought in professional actors and made the staff their new found techniques on an actor who was given a very specific role based on the research which was identified earlier.

In other words they reproduced the actual events, in the actual locations, to teach the staff on the job. They also video recorded the staff practising these techniques with the actor and then played the videos back to a panel and then the panel coached the individual trainee on how to improve on what they were already doing correctly.

Once they had completed this process they would teach them more models and gave them more difficult role plays to do. If they taught method A against scenario B and they would then mix it up and make it more difficult.

They are going to feedback on what the impact of this style of coaching has achieved very soon. However, I know this will work because they use similar strategies in the pharmaceutical industry, this is what we had to do years ago on our training course. It works and in that case it made a massive difference in our ability to sell to people. All of the best companies are using these types of strategies because it forces you to raise your game and learn quickly

To be honest this is far less painful than getting attacked whilst working on the job in the NHS. I think the NHS should trial this in one hospital and test and measure it and evaluate it against the sickness./absenteeism levels. This style of training maybe costly at the outset but it could save our country billions.

Possibly Related Posts:

We must reduce any attacks on NHS staff and this will improve the nation’s health

Darren Good — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 09:00:50 +0000

In 2008/09 there were 54,758 reported physical assaults against NHS staff in England. This is a reduction of 1,235 compared to the previous year. There were 941 criminal sanctions in cases of assault, compared to 992 in 2007/08. These are shocking statistics but I read an interesting article this week about assaults on NHS staff being treated more seriously by the Crown Prosecution Service. The article read:

“The NHS Security Management Service (SMS) has welcomed the revisions to the sixth edition of the Code for Crown Prosecutors, which highlights the public interest in prosecuting all those who attack health workers. The NHS Security Management Service (NHS SMS) – a division of the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) – was set up in 2003 to handle policy and operational guidance relating to the management of security within the NHS in England.

“Issued by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), the latest edition of the Code for Crown Prosecutors gives guidance to prosecutors on the general principles to be applied when making decisions about prosecutions. Previously, the Code gave limited specific examples of victims of offences who ‘served the public’ – citing the police, prison officers and nurses. These examples have been broadened to specifically include ‘members of the emergency services’ and ‘a health or social welfare professional,’ among others.

This is really good new for both the NHS as a whole and my company as one of it’s accredited training providers. This is what we all wanted to hear; we want people to take aggressive acts against hard working NHS staff members seriously. Now that they are finally considering taking them more seriously it’s about creating some real momentum and making lots of noise about the issue.

Any attacks on a working member of the NHS is disgusting and the fact that people get away with it is even worse. This is about managers saying enough is enough, it’s also about the police taking a harder line with the offenders.

Furthermore, it’s about security managers in the NHS putting the right training and resources in place to avoid the situations altogether. What I am saying is all of this is about cultural change! Whether this is our course delegates, NHS staff managers and policy and security managers.

The CPS needs to realise this is impacting of what it is like to work in the NHS on a day to day basis. It needs to be a much safer and tidier place. The money is in the NHS (£100bn) but its because of inefficiencies that it isn’t used effectively). Did you know sickness in the NHS is 50% higher than the private sector?

In my opinion if you reduce violence and aggression in the NHS and you will reduce sickness and overall improve productivity. How is that for a cutback? You don’t have to cut staff this summer Mr Brown/Cameron – how about taking a tougher line with assaults on NHS staff. The knock on effect of all of this is the patient is more likely to actually get some treatment if the staff are at work and happy in their work.

Possibly Related Posts:

The NHS shouldn’t use Conflict Resolution Training as a tick box exercise.

Darren Good — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 12:06:05 +0000

I noticed a story this week that really saddened me to the core, the The Mirror’s article read:

A charity was fined £30,000 yesterday for failing to protect a care worker stabbed to death by a paranoid schizophrenic.

Crazed Ronald Dixon, 39, knifed Ashleigh Ewing, 22, 39 times in the chest only months after threatening to kill the Queen outside Buckingham Palace.

The psychology graduate was sent on a visit alone to his rented flat in Heaton, Newcastle, on the last day of a six-month probation with Mental Health Matters in 2006. Dixon admitted manslaughter.

The city’s crown court yesterday heard his behaviour warranted a more rigorous risk assessment.

The charity admitted breaching Health and Safety act and was ordered to pay £20,000 costs.

It is a very sad story but a shocking one too – did you know that the police don’t go to houses alone? And yet we send young female graduates to deal with psychologically disturbed people. I find this pretty shocking, for a start the police are trained to deal with aggressive people and are armed with CS gas, extendable truncheons, hand cuffs and hold the power of the law.

The charity in the article was fined against the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 (Section 2) which states:

It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.

It is an extremely sad story but it is one I fear will be shared across the country time and again as companies and the public sector fail to provide the type of training their staff need to identify or deal with violent situations.

These organisations in the public sector shouldn’t commission a one-hour conflict resolution training course over lunch to make sure they tick the box, they should send their teams on proper full-day course or call in a team like mine in to train the staff appropriately. After all we are talking about lives being lost here. Now I am not saying that our training will save everybody’s life but it provides a far better standard of identification and dealing with these types of situations than a quick tick box exercise would.

I know a lot of these organisations are now looking at reducing budgets, and so look for the cheapest way to tick the box with many things. The cheapest training company is often the cheapest for a reason. If you or your organisation had an audit you would get pulled up on this straight away. My advice is go to a company you have either heard about or been recommended by someone you respect. You cannot substitute good training especially if it reduces situations like this where a life has been lost.

The rule of the NHS Counter Fraud Service is it actually audits what you have completed. It actually states that you must have a minimum of four hours training in conflict resolution/conflict management. However, there are several NHS trusts out there trying to do it on far less hours and who is this really helping. What I am trying to say here is make sure your team’s training is truly fit for purpose. The thing that I find most scary is that without proper training people are dying simply doing their jobs. How much is a life worth? We shouldn’t be losing lives we should be protecting them.

Possibly Related Posts: