Understanding Behaviour Through Sensory Seeking in PBS: Supporting Regulation Without Misreading Risk

Positive Behaviour Support requires services to understand sensory seeking as part of behaviour, regulation and daily support. The Positive Behaviour Support knowledge hub supports providers to connect behaviour, communication, proactive support, rights and reduction of restrictive practice.

In specialist services, understanding behaviour through PBS means asking whether the person is seeking movement, pressure, sound, touch, visual input, taste, smell or physical feedback to help them feel calm, alert or organised.

This reflects PBS principles and values, because support should understand what behaviour does for the person before trying to stop it. Strong services do not treat sensory seeking as disruption without checking whether it is helping the person regulate.

Concept Explained Clearly

Sensory seeking occurs when a person actively looks for sensory input. This may include rocking, spinning, jumping, touching textures, seeking firm pressure, making repeated sounds, watching movement, chewing items, smelling objects or moving quickly through spaces.

These behaviours may help the person manage anxiety, stay alert, reduce boredom, organise their body or cope with overwhelming environments. In PBS, the question is not simply whether the behaviour is unusual or risky. The question is what need it is meeting and how that need can be supported safely.

Why It Matters in Real Services

When sensory seeking is misunderstood, staff may repeatedly block or redirect behaviour without offering an alternative that meets the same need. This can increase frustration, distress and risk because the person loses a strategy that may have been helping them cope.

There are also safety and quality risks. Some sensory seeking may involve unsafe chewing, climbing, pushing, running, intense pressure or repeated impact. Commissioners and CQC will expect providers to evidence that risks are managed through skilled, least restrictive support rather than simple prohibition.

What Good Looks Like

Strong services demonstrate that sensory seeking is understood by function, context and risk. Staff know what type of input the person seeks, when they seek it, what makes it more likely, what safe alternatives help and when health or specialist advice is needed.

Good PBS practice creates planned sensory opportunities. Staff build movement, pressure, texture, sound or calming routines into the day before behaviour becomes risky. Providers should be able to evidence how sensory support reduces distress, improves participation and protects safety.

Operational Example 1: Chewing Non-Food Items

Step 1 – Context identified: A person in supported living frequently chewed clothing sleeves, pens and small household items. Staff recorded this as unsafe behaviour and removed items when noticed.

Step 2 – Function explored: The provider reviewed when chewing happened and found it increased during waiting, television time and before community outings. Chewing appeared to provide oral sensory input and anxiety regulation.

Step 3 – Support approach: Staff introduced agreed safe chew items, offered before known high-risk times. The person chose from two options and kept one available during transitions.

Step 4 – Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff stopped simply removing unsafe items without replacement. If the person picked up an unsafe item, staff calmly offered the safe alternative and reduced verbal correction.

Step 5 – How effectiveness was evidenced: Chewing of unsafe items reduced, transitions became calmer and staff records showed more proactive sensory support. The provider evidenced that meeting the sensory need reduced risk more effectively than removal alone.

Deepening the Understanding: Seeking Behaviour Often Increases When Regulation Is Low

Sensory seeking may increase when the person is anxious, tired, bored, under-stimulated or overloaded. It may also appear when routines lack meaningful movement, pressure or activity. Strong PBS services look at the wider day, not only the moment of behaviour.

Providers should be able to evidence how sensory seeking is considered alongside communication, environment, health, activity and emotional state. This helps teams avoid treating sensory seeking as a habit to suppress when it may be a sign that support needs to change.

The related article on seeing behaviour as communication in PBS reinforces why repeated sensory behaviours should be understood as possible communication about regulation, stimulation or unmet need.

Operational Example 2: Seeking Firm Pressure During Busy Periods

Step 1 – Pattern noticed: In a residential service, a person often leaned heavily into staff or pushed against furniture during busy lounge periods. Staff were concerned about boundaries and potential injury.

Step 2 – Sensory need reviewed: Observation showed the behaviour increased when the lounge was noisy and crowded. The person appeared to seek firm pressure when the environment became difficult to manage.

Step 3 – Support adjusted: Staff created a pressure-support routine using weighted items already agreed as safe, a firm cushion option and access to a quieter space.

Step 4 – Risk management: Staff avoided sudden physical blocking. They guided the person towards agreed pressure options and recorded whether the person settled after using them.

Step 5 – Outcome evidence: Pushing into staff reduced, use of the pressure routine increased and lounge participation improved. The provider evidenced that safe sensory alternatives reduced interpersonal risk.

Systems, Workforce and Consistency

Sensory seeking support must be consistent. If one staff member understands the behaviour and another treats it as nuisance or deliberate disruption, the person receives mixed responses. Strong services include sensory guidance in PBS plans, activity planning, risk assessments, handovers and supervision.

Managers should review whether staff provide sensory input proactively or only respond after risk appears. Supervision should explore whether staff understand the function of sensory seeking and whether alternatives are genuinely accessible during the day.

Operational Example 3: Running in Corridors for Movement Input

Step 1 – Service concern: A person in a day service repeatedly ran along corridors between sessions. Staff worried about collisions and began telling the person to stop each time.

Step 2 – Need identified: The provider reviewed the timetable and found long seated periods with limited movement. Running happened most often before transitions and after waiting.

Step 3 – Support response: Staff built movement into the routine, including a planned outdoor walk, carrying light items between rooms and a short movement activity before seated sessions.

Step 4 – Safety planning: The corridor remained a no-running area, but staff offered a clear alternative before the person reached that point. Visual prompts showed where running was unsafe and where movement was available.

Step 5 – Evidence reviewed: Corridor running reduced, transitions became safer and session participation improved. The provider evidenced that planned movement met the sensory need while reducing environmental risk.

Governance and Evidence

Governance should show how sensory seeking is understood, planned and reviewed. Providers should be able to evidence sensory profiles, PBS plan updates, risk assessments, incident analysis, staff briefings, supervision notes, specialist advice where needed and outcome monitoring.

Strong governance connects sensory need to safe support. Records should show what input the person sought, what risk was present, what alternative was offered and whether the outcome improved. This creates a clear line of sight from behaviour to sensory seeking, from sensory seeking to support action, and from support action to outcome.

Commissioner and CQC Expectations

Commissioners expect providers to manage sensory-related behaviour in ways that protect safety, dignity and quality of life. They need assurance that services understand function and do not rely on restriction where proactive support would be more effective.

CQC will expect care to be person-centred, responsive and least restrictive. Inspectors may review whether staff understand sensory needs, whether risks are assessed, whether plans are followed and whether people have meaningful access to activities. Strong services demonstrate that sensory seeking is supported through practical, evidence-led PBS.

Common Pitfalls

• Stopping sensory seeking without offering an alternative that meets the same need.
• Describing behaviour as disruptive without reviewing regulation or stimulation needs.
• Providing sensory items that are unavailable when the person actually needs them.
• Using restriction before testing proactive sensory support.
• Failing to distinguish between safe sensory seeking and behaviour that needs risk planning.
• Not evidencing whether sensory support improves participation and wellbeing.

Conclusion

Understanding behaviour through sensory seeking helps PBS teams see movement, pressure, sound, texture, chewing or visual input as possible regulation strategies. Behaviour may be meeting a real sensory need, even when it also creates risk.

Strong providers support sensory needs safely and proactively. They evidence how planned alternatives reduce distress, protect access and improve quality of life. This gives commissioners and CQC confidence that PBS is practical, least restrictive and grounded in how people actually experience the world.