The Truth about Prone Restraint

SCOPE OF THIS SITE

This scope of this site is limited to the use of physical prone restraint.

This site does not deal with mechanical restraint options like vests, handcuffs or soft restraints.

This purpose of this site is to show that prone restraints are not equal and that it is a mistake to lump all prone restraints into one category. There are prone restraints that do not place any weight on the client's back or chest or impede or restrict breathing.

This site is dedicated to bringing to light prone restraint options that do not restrict breathing and the advantages of its use to keep staff and client safe when circumstances warrant it's use.

This site fully supports the least restrictive means of intervention and the professional judgment standard.

The restraint options being offered by the advocate community are not viable. When the truth be told, prone restraint is sometimes the least restrictive intervention. In these instances, the people and facilities that stepped up to protect a child, a patient, a son or daughter or the elderly should not be stigmatized, harassed or subjected to frivilous lawsuits.

Limiting the intervention tools has resulted in a "school to prison" pipeline as documented by the ACLU; and overuse of psychotropic drugs to medically treat what in many instances are environmental or behavioral issues. Good programs have closed because they can no longer maintain a safe environment, resulting out-of-state placement as well as the criminalization of youth because juvenile justice is the only place left for them to go.

RUMOR CENTRAL ALERT

ThetruthAboutProneRestraint.com has heard that NY OCFS Commissioner, Gladys Carrion, may be bailing from her out of control and sinking ship at OCFS and headed for a job on that other ship of fools; the U.S.S. Justice Department.

While exact details of Carrion's new assignment are not yet known, DOJ has a bad habit of hiring as "Monitors" former executives who were a disaster at their former job. Anyone remember the "Peter Principle?" Read More

THIS JUST IN

EXPERTS AGREE: Prone Restraint Does Not Lead To Suddent Death Due to Hypoxia

Six highly respected scientific experiments conclude that merely restraining an agitated person cannot possibly lead to significant hypoxia unless, there is some preexisting problems with central cardiac output, peripheral oxygen extraction, or oxygen utilization. Read More.

VIDEO SHOWS INACCURACIES IN DOJ'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

In 2009 DOJ CRIPA division commenced an investigation into the conditions at 4 juvenile facilities. In August, 2009 DOJ released its findings regarding its investigation. In response to DOJ’s report the staff at OCFS as well as many NYS legislators voiced concerns that DOJ’s report and findings did not accurately reflect the true conditions at OCFS’ juvenile facilities.

Specifically, OCFS’ staff and NYS legislators claimed that DOJ’s report failed to address the unsafe conditions existing at OCFS’ juvenile facilities that placed staff as well as youth at undue risk.

A recently released video supports the claims made by OCFS' staff and NYS legislators that DOJ's report is inaccurate. Read More and See the Video

FEDS ADMIT THEY MAKE UP RESTRAINT & SECLUSION NUMBERS

In 2009 Federal Agencies were asked in a Freedom of Information Act Request to produce their statistics on the number of restraint and seclusion fatalities annually for the past decade. The Federal Agencies that were asked to produce these statistics were:

SAMHSA
CMS
NASMHPD and
FDA

In response to the FOIA, the requester was told that none of the listed Federal agencies had statistics on restraint or seclusion. Read More.

COLORADO'S CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLEGAL RESTRAINT BILL REJECTED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Colorado's proposed bill 11-049 violates a person’s legal right to self-defense and right to come to the defense of another child or adult in Colorado using reasonable and proportionate force in accordance with a “reasonable person” standard.

Second this bill bill that arbitrarily limits classes of persons — i.e. those persons publicly employed — right to defend themselves and others. The bill further limits a publicly employed professional’s right to develop treatment plans based on their professional judgment and needs of the client.

Apparently Colorado's legislature agrees with us as the bill prohibiting the use of prone restraint was rejected by Colorado's House of Representatives.

False impetus for the introduction of this legislation

Advocates and the Colorado senate are using the recent death at one of Colorado’s Developmental Disabilities facilities as the guise for the need to push through legislation that would limit a Colorado citizen’s natural and constitutional rights. Notably the fatality happened at a Colorado facility that banned prone restraint, not at a facility that allows for and trains staff in properly engineered prone restraint.

OVERDRUGGING CHILDREN AND SENIORS

Acording to Federal law and CMS regulations, the standard of intervention is the least restrictive intervention method necessary that is effective for safety and/or the least restrictive intervention necessary according to a professional judgment standard for treatment.

It is widely held that chemical restraint is much more invasive than physical restraint with much greater side effects, especially with children. Apparently the U.S. Department of Justice thinks so too. Drug maker Johnson & Johnson paid tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks to nursing home pharmacies in order to boost the sale of its drugs, says a Justice Department lawsuit.

Today, the nation's most vulnerable populations: seniors and children are often warehoused and mentally shackled with chemical restraints known as pharmaceuticals. The mass-drugging of senior citizens in nursing homes, and children in foster care has reached criminal proportions. One of the reasons for the rampant abuse is that Federal reimbursement programs promote the overuse of pharmaceuticals as it's easier to drug'm than to treat'm. Full Article.

Texas: Daystar Residential On the Restraint Hot Seat Again:

Why using the basket hold in the prone position is a BAD IDEA

The type of restraint used at this facility has not yet been released. However the last time Daystar got into a jam it was using the basket hold in the prone position. Even the Feds had the wherewithall to recognize that the basket hold in the prone position is a bad idea.

Putting a client in a basket hold and restraining them face down is a bad idea. As we have been saying, all prone restraints are not equal. Some can be used safely, others are simply not safe. The basket hold in the prone position is an example of a face down restraint that should be avoided at all costs. Full Story

The intervention & restraint options Advocates are offering are insufficient to maintain safety.

Advocates would have you believe that staff should never have to restrain a child on the floor or use prone restraint. This is nonsense.

Do Advocates have an ulterior motive?

CREATING THE PERFECT MARKETING/LOBBYING MACHINE: MENTAL HEALTH “ADVOCACY GROUPS” FUNDED BY PHARMA

The majority of the public may or may not be familiar with these so-called mental health advocacy organizations, such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Children and Adults with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD) or the myriad of bipolar, depression or ADHD “support groups” that are inundating the internet.

But they need to be.

These are groups operating under the guise of advocates for the “mentally ill,” which in reality are heavily funded pharmaceutical front groups – lobbying and working on state and federal laws which effect the entire nation — from our elderly in nursing homes to our military, pregnant women, nursing mothers and school children. To put it simply, these groups are not what they appear to be. Yet their influence over legislation, lobbying, drug regulation (or lack thereof), and public relations campaigns is substantial and effects the entire nation. For they claim to be the voice of the “mentally ill.” But are they?

HOW IT ALL STARTED:

In the late 1970s and 1980s, prominent American Psychiatric Association (APA) psychiatrists, directors and researchers with the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) were in need of more government funding, and devised a plan to create a “growth of consumer and advocacy organizations”. In an incestuous relationship, many of these groups were formed by the directors or researchers from NIMH (NDRN and SAMHSA are no different) the very organization that needed mental health advocacy groups to make demands on Congress for increased funding. All of them had board or advisory board members with financial ties to Pharma and the majority of them were heavily funded by Pharma. So this was a brilliant marketing/lobbying strategy – Set up patients rights groups to lobby for the funding needed for psychiatry and big Pharma while claiming to be “advocates” for the mentally ill. More.

<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 14pt