Page 37 - Reduction of coercive measures

Associations between different types of coercive measures were determined by calculating a phi correlation coefficients for all types of coercive measures. 13 correlations ≥ .50 were determined (see Table 1).
Table 1: Correlations of ≥ .50 between different types of coercive measures
Measurement of coercive measures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
Jump suit which cannot be torn and/or prevents residents taking of their clothes
.56
2
Jumpsuit which includes a lock at the back to prevent the resident taking off his clothes
3
Locking the outer doors (to prevent the resident or other residents from leaving the care unit)
.64
.55
.58
.54
4
Closing access to the garden
.56
.63
.61
5
Resident is not allowed to be on the institution area without permission of staff carers
.79
.70
6
The resident not being allowed within and outside the institutional grounds without permission
.79
.50
7
Resident is not allowed within the institutional grounds without permission
8
The resident not allowed outside and within the residential grounds without surveillance (either under supervision of support staff or through the use of surveillance technology)
.72
9
Resident is not allowed at or outside the institutional grounds without supervision (supervised by support staff or surveillance technology)
Part two – Validation and implementation study
The panel of stakeholders discussed possible explanations of the results in part one for the differences among informants, and the implications of the findings for routine registration in day to day care. No obvious explanation was agreed upon for the variation in agreement on coercive measures between the different informants,
35
2