Restrictive practices To support the commitment to reduce and eliminate the use of restrictive practices (in line with the ), the identified four options for authorisation of restrictive practices: Option 1: Voluntary code of practice Option 2: Substitute decision-makers are formally appointed guardians Option 3 Providers authorised to approve restrictive practices where certain conditions are met (e.g. provider initiated panels with at least one independent person or authorised program officer) Option 4: Restrictive practices can only be authorised by an independent decision maker (e.g. by extending the role of guardianship tribunals or establishing an independent office holder, such as a Senior Practitioner). Under all options, the development of behaviour support plans that meet contemporary best practice would be mandatory. Alongside each of these options, a role for an independent person (for example, a family member, friend or other trusted person) could also be recognised. Their primary function would be to explain to the person with disability what is being proposed in their behaviour support plan and their rights to seek a review if they wish. The also identified three options for reporting requirements: Option 1: Mandatory reporting on emergency use only Option 2: Mandatory reporting on emergency use and one-off reporting on positive behaviour support plans that include a restrictive practice Option 3: All elements of Option 2, plus routine reporting on each occasion when certain restrictive practices (physical, chemical, mechanical restraint and seclusion) are used. Authorisation on the options Regulation of restrictive practices was discussed less than elements of the Framework. This may be because their use concerns a smaller group of people. Among those who commented on options for authorisation, there was strong support for Option 4 (requiring that an independent decision maker authorise the use of restrictive practices) to best protect the rights of people with disability and reduce use of restrictive practices. Stakeholders also stressed the importance of positive behaviour support plans and the involvement of people with disability, their family members and other relevant professionals. Some stakeholders expressed concern the concept of authorisation and the inclusion of restrictive practices in the Framework because they represent an infringement of human rights. However, comments from many others identified
Restrictive practices To support the commitment to reduce and eliminate the use of restrictive practices (in line with the ), the identified four options for authorisation of restrictive practices: Option 1: Voluntary code of practice Option 2: Substitute decision-makers are formally appointed guardians Option 3 Providers authorised to approve restrictive practices where certain conditions are met (e.g. provider initiated panels with at least one independent person or authorised program officer) Option 4: Restrictive practices can only be authorised by an independent decision maker (e.g. by extending the role of guardianship tribunals or establishing an independent office holder, such as a Senior Practitioner). Under all options, the development of behaviour support plans that meet contemporary best practice would be mandatory. Alongside each of these options, a role for an independent person (for example, a family member, friend or other trusted person) could also be recognised. Their primary function would be to explain to the person with disability what is being proposed in their behaviour support plan and their rights to seek a review if they wish. The also identified three options for reporting requirements: Option 1: Mandatory reporting on emergency use only Option 2: Mandatory reporting on emergency use and one-off reporting on positive behaviour support plans that include a restrictive practice Option 3: All elements of Option 2, plus routine reporting on each occasion when certain restrictive practices (physical, chemical, mechanical restraint and seclusion) are used. Authorisation on the options Regulation of restrictive practices was discussed less than elements of the Framework. This may be because their use concerns a smaller group of people. Among those who commented on options for authorisation, there was strong support for Option 4 (requiring that an independent decision maker authorise the use of restrictive practices) to best protect the rights of people with disability and reduce use of restrictive practices. Stakeholders also stressed the importance of positive behaviour support plans and the involvement of people with disability, their family members and other relevant professionals. Some stakeholders expressed concern the concept of authorisation and the inclusion of restrictive practices in the Framework because they represent an infringement of human rights. However, comments from many others identified