Incident Response in PBS: Balancing Immediate Safety with Long-Term Behaviour Reduction
Incident response is one of the most scrutinised aspects of Positive Behaviour Support. Decisions made in moments of crisis carry immediate safety implications and long-term consequences for behaviour patterns, rights and service culture. This article builds on guidance within reactive strategies and incident response and aligns with the ethical foundations described in PBS principles and values, recognising that how services respond during incidents shapes outcomes far beyond the moment itself.
Strong incident response balances urgency with restraint, safety with dignity, and immediate action with long-term behavioural goals.
Why Incident Response Shapes Behaviour Over Time
Incident responses do not occur in isolation. Repeated patterns of response can inadvertently reinforce behaviours, increase reliance on restrictive interventions or erode trust between people and staff.
Effective PBS-focused incident response aims to:
- Protect immediate safety
- Reduce escalation and duration
- Avoid reinforcing challenging behaviour
- Support recovery and learning
Operational Example 1: Avoiding Reinforcement in Crisis Situations
Context: A residential service supporting an adult who used property damage to access preferred activities.
Support approach: Incident responses were redesigned to remove inadvertent reinforcement, ensuring safety actions did not result in access to previously restricted items.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff followed structured response sequences and maintained consistency across shifts.
Evidence of effectiveness: Reduction in frequency of incidents and improved engagement with proactive support strategies.
Immediate Safety Versus Restrictive Practice
Incident response must always start with safety, but safety does not automatically justify restriction. Staff must be supported to assess risk dynamically and choose the least restrictive option available.
This requires:
- Clear thresholds for escalation
- Confidence in de-escalation skills
- Management backing for proportionate decisions
Operational Example 2: De-Escalation in a High-Risk Environment
Context: A forensic mental health setting with high baseline risk.
Support approach: Incident response protocols prioritised time, space and verbal strategies before physical intervention.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff rehearsed responses and reviewed incidents through multidisciplinary forums.
Evidence of effectiveness: Fewer restrictive interventions and improved inspection feedback.
Commissioner Expectation: Reduction, Not Just Control
Commissioner expectation: Commissioners increasingly expect services to demonstrate that incident response contributes to reducing incidents over time, not merely managing them. Evidence of learning, trend analysis and adjustment of support is critical.
Operational Example 3: Post-Incident Recovery and Learning
Context: A community service supporting adults with learning disabilities and complex trauma.
Support approach: Post-incident recovery plans focused on emotional repair, reflection and restoring routine.
Day-to-day delivery: Staff completed reflective debriefs and updated behaviour support plans promptly.
Evidence of effectiveness: Improved relationships, fewer repeat incidents and reduced staff burnout.
Regulator Expectation: Safe, Consistent and Understood Practice
Regulator expectation: Regulators expect incident response to be consistent, lawful and clearly understood by staff. Inspectors look for alignment between policy, training and what happens in practice.
Gaps between written guidance and real-world response are a common source of compliance risk.
Embedding Incident Response into Service Culture
Incident response works best when it is part of a wider culture of learning, reflection and improvement. Services that invest in training, supervision and review create safer environments for everyone.