Page 89 - Reduction of coercive measures

Results
Descriptive results
For 209 residents, residing in 41 units, 61 different types of coercive measures were recorded. Most frequent were audio surveillance (on 48.8% of residents), limited access to areas in the unit (on 27.8% of residents), and locking cupboards/wardrobes/kitchen cabinets/ refrigerator (on 21.5% of residents). The most frequent 17 coercive measures represented 80% of all occurrences. Distribution among subsets was as follows: 12 times measures were applied to prevent from direct danger, 36 times measures were applied to prevent from indirect danger or disadvantage, 5 times coercive measures arose from the use of surveillance technology, and 8 times from the use support material. Descriptive data of all predictors are presented in Table 1. An overview of the correlations between the predictors is given in Table 2.
Table 1: Descriptives resident and staff related variables
Associate factors of coercive measures
Instrument
N
Range
M
SD
Social adaptive behavior
173
0.0
-
185.5
29.9
30.1
Attachment behavior
127
22.0
-
130.0
68.7
27.2
Challenging behavior
133
0.0
-
54.0
11.6
13.0
Staff self efficacy
183
4.5
-
6.3
5.2
0.4
Attribution stability
183
26.7
-
40.6
33.6
3.4
Attribution controllability
183
23.3
-
33.6
29.4
2.8
Table 2: Correlations resident and staff related variables
Observed variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
1. Social adaptive behavior
.07
-.37**
.13
-.01
.10
2. Attachment behavior
.16
-.02
.17
.09
3. Challenging behavior
-.06
.15
.05
4. Staff self efficacy
-.30**
-.08
5. Attribution stability
.74**
6. Attribution controllability
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
87
4