Our Approach and Ethos

 

Edexcel Licensed Centre

 

We are a Specialist Provider in the field of Conflict Management with specific expertise and competence in the field of Occupational Physical Skill development, construction, analysis, assessment and delivery.  We are also an Approved Edexcel Centre for the delivery of BTEC Qualifications and we have written specific Customised BTEC Awards in Phyical Restraint Practice, Instruction and Coaching.

 

Our aim is to provide training and consultancy that reduces risk whilst also reducing liability. 

 

Legal Underpinning

 

All of the training that will be delivered is subject to on-going legal research to ensure that we provide training that is legally accurate and compliant with UK statute including Human Rights Legislation and Strasbourg case law as well as specific Children's primary and secondary legislation, and where it is appropriate and lawfully correct, relevant codes of professional practice.

 

Risk Assessment

 

All training is carried out in line with suitably constructed risk assessments and current health and safety legislation and regulations. This provision also allows us the ability to provide active feedback into the management system highlighting any areas that may require immediate attention or review and / or corrective action to minimise the risk of accidents and injuries occurring.

 

Our restraint-training programme is compliant with the guidance contained in the Manual Handling Regulations aimed at reducing the risk of direct or cumulative injury in staff who are expected to use physical restraint.

 

Training Needs Analysis (TNA)

 

When constructing training needs analysis' we take into consideration the principle that the people we train will already have varying degrees of skill and knowledge, which will vary from person to person. Therefore, we look at what they are required to do, what they can already do and finally the need for training to put into place the skills that are missing.

 

This is an important factor to consider when developing physical skills training programmes. Coaching research illustrates a number of issues that should be taken into consideration when designing and developing physical skills programmes. One human factor that must be taken into consideration is the natural ability of staff and the other is the natural ability of those persons who may attack staff or who staff will be expected to restrain. For example, social care staff, who may have joined the organisation from a caring perspective, may not have the physical ability (or indeed the personal motivation) to undertake complex physical skills training, or indeed apply what they have learnt in situations of heightened pressure and distress. Therefore, the training needs analysis needs to reflect that in the type of skills that staff can achieve and which should be taught to achieve the desired outcome.

 

The training needs analysis however, is not done in isolation but in line with a risk assessment as training may not in itself be the best practical way of achieving the same control factor with less risk.

 

Audit

 

We use audits as a structured process of gathering information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management system. The audit helps us review and modify the risk management process making corrective actions where necessary to improve safety by reducing risk.

By continually developing, reviewing, monitoring, auditing what we do we have the unique ability to be able to develop our range of physical skills and techniques to meet the wide range of end-user and client needs within a structured and accountable framework of risk and technical analysis.

 

The benefits to clients is that we can devise and modify physical skills to best suit the individual whilst taking into consideration all of the local compound factors such as environment, natural ability (or lack of), and third parties.

 

Delivering Training

 

When delivering a training programme we need to accept that what we start with will change in time as it is modified and corrected by the positive active feedback process. If this is acceptable then when considering at what stage training should be delivered there are two basic options:

 

  1. Undertake a full risk assessment and training needs analysis supported by independent audits to identify training needs, aims, objectives and methods. Then deliver the training, monitor it for effectiveness and feed the information back into each stage of the process to further correct the training as a risk control measure and also to construct appropriate and effective supporting policy and procedure.

  2. Begin the training process basing training on risk assessed and training needs analysis models already in use and from there feed information back into the organisation to further correct the training as a risk control measure and also to construct appropriate and effective supporting policy and procedure.

 

Although option 1 is the ideal model for implementation the drawbacks of option 1 is the longer timescale for the implementation of training delivery. This means that there will be a 'dead period' in-between the undertaking of the initial risk assessment, it's analysis and the identification of training aims and objectives. In addition, organisations may choose to wait until the board has agreed a policy before training can commence. All these delays can result in untrained staff being exposed to risks over an extended period of time without adequate training.

 

Option 2 allows us to utilise training that has already had risk assessments and training needs analyses done, and where aims and objectives are clearly set. This means training can commence almost immediately so staff are not exposed to a 'dead period' whilst waiting for the various stages to be completed. In addition, feedback from the training will have a bearing on policy and procedure which can follow on from the training delivery and which, if constructed properly, will have a greater bearing on staff ownership as they will have had a part in its construction based on the feedback they provide from the training.

 

Insurance Cover

 

Safer Handling possess £10,000,000.00 of Public Liability and Indemnity Insurance Cover and Employers Liability Insurance Cover specifically for the activity of occupational physical intervention and disengagement training.

Head Office: Cotton Court, Church Street, Preston, Lancashire PR1 3BY
Tel: 07872 500272 Email: info@defenduk.co.uk 
Privacy Policy
Defend UK Professional Safety Education is part of the Defend Group, which includes Defend Solutions Ltd, Safer Handling and Pro-Tactical