SCOPE OF THIS SITE
This scope of this site is limited to the use of physical prone restraint.
This site does not deal with mechanical restraint options like vests, handcuffs or soft restraints.
This purpose of this site is to show that prone restraints are not equal and that it is a mistake to lump all prone restraints into one category. There are prone restraints that do not place any weight on the client's back or chest or impede or restrict breathing.
This site is dedicated to bringing to light prone restraint options that do not restrict breathing and the advantages of its use to keep staff and client safe when circumstances warrant it's use.
This site fully supports the least restrictive means of intervention and the professional judgment standard.
The restraint options being offered by the advocate community are not viable. When the truth be told, prone restraint is sometimes the least restrictive intervention. In these instances, the people and facilities that stepped up to protect a child, a patient, a son or daughter or the elderly should not be stigmatized, harassed or subjected to frivilous lawsuits.
Limiting the intervention tools has resulted in a "school to prison" pipeline as documented by the ACLU; and overuse of psychotropic drugs to medically treat what in many instances are environmental or behavioral issues. Good programs have closed because they can no longer maintain a safe environment, resulting out-of-state placement as well as the criminalization of youth because juvenile justice is the only place left for them to go.
AR-SA? mso-bidi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language:>
THIS JUST IN
PRONE POSITION IS NOT RISKIER FOR CONSUMERS:
Dispelling the myths about the risk of prone positioning comes a study funded by the Canadian Police Research Center. The results appear in the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine under the title "Incidence and outcome of prone positioning . . . "
Some highlights from the study include:
This study challenges the belief that simply placing a subject face-down in a prone position is dangerous. In fact, incusody death has more to do with the features of the individual than with his or her positioning. Even among suspects supposed to be at high risk -- the drug and alcohol intoxicated and those with mental illness -- there appears to be no scientific basis for believing that prone positiong is any more dangerous than other restraining techniques or positions.
Original research on the effects of prone positioning are shown to be "fraught with methodological errors," and that other, more sophisticated studies disputed alleged adverse findings regarding prone restraint.
There is no scientific evidence to regard prone positioning as "particularly dangerous" to restrained subjects both not under and under the influence of intoxicants or in the agitated, incoherent state known as excited delirium as well as those who have been TASERed.
Even though prone positioing was very common, the researchers noted, none of the "hundreds of subjects in the prone position" died. Read More.
EXPERTS AGREE: Prone Restraint Does Not Lead To Suddent Death Due to Hypoxia
Six highly respected scientific experiments conclude that merely restraining an agitated person cannot possibly lead to significant hypoxia unless, there is some preexisting problems with central cardiac output, peripheral oxygen extraction, or oxygen utilization. Read More.
VIDEO SHOWS INACCURACIES IN DOJ'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT
In 2009 DOJ CRIPA division commenced an investigation into the conditions at 4 juvenile facilities. In August, 2009 DOJ released its findings regarding its investigation. In response to DOJís report the staff at OCFS as well as many NYS legislators voiced concerns that DOJís report and findings did not accurately reflect the true conditions at OCFSí juvenile facilities.
Specifically, OCFSí staff and NYS legislators claimed that DOJís report failed to address the unsafe conditions existing at OCFSí juvenile facilities that placed staff as well as youth at undue risk.
A recently released video supports the claims made by OCFS' staff and NYS legislators that DOJ's report is inaccurate. Read More and See the Video
FEDS ADMIT THEY MAKE UP RESTRAINT & SECLUSION NUMBERS
In 2009 Federal Agencies were asked in a Freedom of Information Act Request to produce their statistics on the number of restraint and seclusion fatalities annually for the past decade. The Federal Agencies that were asked to produce these statistics were:
In response to the FOIA, the requester was told that none of the listed Federal agencies had statistics on restraint or seclusion. Read More.
COLORADO'S CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL RESTRAINT BILL REJECTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Colorado's proposed bill 11-049 violates a personís legal right to self-defense and right to come to the defense of another child or adult in Colorado using reasonable and proportionate force in accordance with a ďreasonable personĒ standard.
Second this bill bill that arbitrarily limits classes of persons ó i.e. those persons publicly employed ó right to defend themselves and others. The bill further limits a publicly employed professionalís right to develop treatment plans based on their professional judgment and needs of the client.
Apparently Colorado's legislature agrees with us as the bill prohibiting the use of prone restraint was rejected by Colorado's House of Representatives.
False impetus for the introduction of this legislation
Advocates and the Colorado senate are using the recent death at one of Coloradoís Developmental Disabilities facilities as the guise for the need to push through legislation that would limit a Colorado citizenís natural and constitutional rights. Notably the fatality happened at a Colorado facility that banned prone restraint, not at a facility that allows for and trains staff in properly engineered prone restraint.
OVERDRUGGING CHILDREN AND SENIORS
Acording to Federal law and CMS regulations, the standard of intervention is the least restrictive intervention method necessary that is effective for safety and/or the least restrictive intervention necessary according to a professional judgment standard for treatment.
It is widely held that chemical restraint is much more invasive than physical restraint with much greater side effects, especially with children. Apparently the U.S. Department of Justice thinks so too. Drug maker Johnson & Johnson paid tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks to nursing home pharmacies in order to boost the sale of its drugs, says a Justice Department lawsuit.
Today, the nation's most vulnerable populations: seniors and children are often warehoused and mentally shackled with chemical restraints known as pharmaceuticals. The mass-drugging of senior citizens in nursing homes, and children in foster care has reached criminal proportions. One of the reasons for the rampant abuse is that Federal reimbursement programs promote the overuse of pharmaceuticals as it's easier to drug'm than to treat'm. Full Article.
Texas: Daystar Residential On the Restraint Hot Seat Again:
Why using the basket hold in the prone position is a BAD IDEA
The type of restraint used at this facility has not yet been released. However the last time Daystar got into a jam it was using the basket hold in the prone position. Even the Feds had the wherewithall to recognize that the basket hold in the prone position is a bad idea.
Putting a client in a basket hold and restraining them face down is a bad idea. As we have been saying, all prone restraints are not equal. Some can be used safely, others are simply not safe. The basket hold in the prone position is an example of a face down restraint that should be avoided at all costs. Full Story
The intervention & restraint options Advocates are offering are insufficient to maintain safety.
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman</S