Complex Behaviour Service: content analysis of stakeholder opinions
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/AMHID-08-2013-0057 |
| Published date | 02 July 2014 |
| Date | 02 July 2014 |
| Pages | 228-236 |
| Author | Sophie Inchley-Mort,Angela Hassiotis |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Learning & intellectual disabilities,Accounting education |
Complex Behaviour Service: content
analysis of stakeholder opinions
Sophie Inchley-Mort and Angela Hassiotis
Sophie Inchley-Mort is a
Researcher, based at Camden
Learning Disabilities Service,
Camden & Islington NHS
Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Angela Hassiotis is based at
Mental Health Sciences Unit,
University College London,
London, UK.
Abstract
Purpose – Positive behaviour support has been positioned by current government policy as an important
intervention for people with intellectual disabilities who display behaviours that challenge services. However,
little is known about service user or carer opinions towards the use of this kind of model. The paper aims
to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach – Opinions and experiences of 25 carers and six service users were
collected through semi-structured interview as part of the evaluation of an enhanced service, Complex
Behaviour Service, based on positive behaviour support principles.
Findings – Content analysis indicated that the service was seen as acceptable and useful and that positive
experiences of the service linked to: frequency and availability of the service; talking about behaviour and
being listened to; understanding, and change in, the service user, carer and behaviour.
Originality/value – This adds to the small but growing literature on service user and carer opinions
towards specific interventions and highlights themes that future services could consider in delivering
evidence-based care.
Keywords Qualitative, Intellectual disability, Challenging behaviour, Adults, Complex behaviour,
Service model
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The need for service user and carer involvement in service development and evaluation has
been widely recognised (Bonell et al., 2011) and reflected in government policy (e.g.
Department of Health, 2004; Scottish Executive, 2006). Sadly, healthcare-related service user
opinions have not always been taken into account with the majority of decisions being made by
“others” (Ferguson et al., 2011; Fovargue et al., 2000), resulting in tokenistic use of service user
involvement (The Royal college of Psychiatrists, 2008). In addition to the lack of documented
service user and carer involvement in service provision, little has been elicited regarding service
user opinions on intervention efficacy (Raitasuo et al., 1999).
Thematic synthesis of qualitative research documenting the experiences of people with
intellectual disability of support services and interventions (Griffith et al., 2013) elucidated the
pervasive negative experiences and restrictive practises that people have encountered in
responseto their behaviour.Participants acrossstudies reported a desire forpositive relationships
with staff and lessrestrictive responses to challenging behaviour (e.g. Lunskyand Gracey, 2009;
Duperouzel and Fish, 2010). Few reported being offered proactive interventions to help them
manage their behaviour. While developing a new “challenging behaviour strategy” (Fellows and
Jones, 2011) serviceusers reported wanting to work with skilled individuals who understoodthe
situationaltriggers for their behaviours; peoplewho focused on their positive aspects,not just the
behaviour, and services who incorporated their ideas in service development and evaluation.
A meta-synthesis of qualitative research gathering family carers’ views (Griffith and Hastings,
2013), suggested that many available support services increased, rather than alleviated, burden
The authors would like to thank
Kiran Azam and Sanjib Gosh for
their input in the data analysis.
Funding: North Central London
Research Consortium (NoCLoR;
grant reference 2C10).
PAGE 228
j
ADVANCES IN MENTAL HEALTH AND INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
j
VOL. 8 NO. 4 2014, pp. 228-236, CEmeraldGroup Publishing Limited, ISSN 2044-1282 DOI 10.1108/AMHID-08-2013-0057
To continue reading
Request your trial