Following the Security Industry Authority’s announcement on mandatory top up training for door supervisors in physical intervention, it’s important to provide some kind of insight into the tragedies that forced change, the lessons we can learn from these incidents and assess the key steps employers need to take to manage risks surrounding the use of force.
Door supervisors have always had to manage conflict and have, at times, been both the victims of violence and the perceived perpetrators of it. Prior to the Security Industry Authority regime, some local authorities filled the gap as did the British Institute of Innkeeping and then Skills or Security, in turn ensuring that accredited programmes in conflict management and physical intervention were made available.
The Regulator embraced conflict management from the beginning, but the subject of physical intervention was an emotive one that often ended up in the ‘too hard’ box. Thankfully, the Regulator’s competency lead Linda Sharpe kept the issue alive and facilitated the development of employer guidance back in 2007.
To their credit, the leading door security companies also worked hard to improve matters but the fragmented, part-time and cost-driven nature of the industry made something of an uphill battle. These factors in combination with the absence of a united effort by the insurers and venue owners/operators in demanding additional training meant the Security Industry Authority ‘badge’ remained the only currency that mattered.
Key driver of standards in door supervision
Mark Seymour has been a key driver of standards in door supervision since heading operational risk at Scottish & Newcastle and the Spirit Group (he’s now at The Restaurant Group). “This latest development [concerning mandatory physical intervention training] is not before time,” he commented. “Too many hospitality guests and their families have unnecessarily suffered injury and harm while too many door supervisors have had to live with the consequences.”
Tony Clarke, who has represented door security companies during the Security Industry Authority’s consultation phases, is also positive.
“We must embrace this mandatory training forthwith,” he asserted. “Credit is due to Tony Holyland and the Regulator’s leadership, and to the proactive sections of our industry. The personal and business costs of violence are too high, and at least one major insurer anticipates substantial increases in premiums if claims surrounding the use of force increase any further.”
The current Security Industry Authority leadership and Board listened to industry opinion and recognised that, despite employer guidance and awareness campaigns, most door supervisors remained untrained. Intervention was needed in the best interests of public safety, but also required ministerial support.
HM Coroner’s letter tips the scales
Further restraint deaths occurred in 2011 involving door supervisors untrained in physical intervention, but it was the outcome of two coroner’s inquests – one in Lincoln, the other in Portsmouth last winter – that were absolutely key to securing ministerial approval for mandatory instruction. Both inquests concerned tragic deaths that followed ejection and restraint from licensed premises.
I’m aware of this as I was asked to provide expert witness support by HM Coroner David Horsley at the Portsmouth inquest into the death of Peter Lawrence (who died following his ejection from a bar in Port Solent). The jury delivered a damning narrative verdict, and Horsley sent a Rule 43 report to the Home Office asking for an explanation as to why existing door supervisors were not required to undertake physical intervention training. Ministers responded quickly this time around, informing the Coroner of their decision to support mandatory training.
Horsley understood the issues well as he had presided over an earlier high profile inquest wherein a patient died following restraint involving security officers in a hospital setting.
We tend to focus on the fatalities, yet for every death there will be many serious injuries – some of them devastating. Another case I worked on concerned John Jones, a young student paralysed following his ejection from a Southampton nightclub. The door supervisor had placed John in a full nelson, one of a number of dangerous neck holds commonly used by door supervisors.
The Security Industry Authority’s physical intervention training requirement is basic, but it provides safer alternatives to neck holds, raises awareness of restraint risks and how to minimise them and helps door supervisors avoid assaults and prosecution.
Lessons we can learn
Most tragedies have taken place inside or directly outside licensed premises, but there are lessons to be drawn for other security functions that use physical intervention as deaths also occur in retail and hospital settings.
A common feature in these and other restraint-related deaths I’ve reviewed is not just that staff lacked appropriate skills. Many seemed oblivious to the risks and failed to act when it was apparently clear to bystanders that an individual was in distress and/or a medical emergency was occurring.
Harm resulted from ignorance rather than malice, and staff will have been devastated at the outcome of what started in most cases as a legitimate ejection. The point is that it’s neither right nor lawful to expect staff to carry out tasks for which they have not been trained.
Raising awareness of positional asphyxia is important, of course, but we should not focus exclusively on this as it can lead to a belief that restraint is safe as long as it’s not a ‘face down on the ground’ scenario. Sudden death can and does occur due to a cocktail of personal and situational factors during a stressful struggle. Many serious incidents also involve falls resulting from a blow, push or trip.
Some feel the Regulator’s physical intervention training doesn’t go far enough (ie by not teaching ground restraint, a decision that’s left to employers). The Security Industry Authority training does at least raise awareness of intervention and restraint risks and steps to reduce these, such as continuous monitoring of the well-being of the subject. This simple measure was not apparent in the cases I have been involved with and could have made the difference.
Beware the law of unintended consequences
It may be surprising to read what I’m about to write, but training alone will not fix the problem. In fact, to some extent it could encourage intervention if not managed carefully.
Maybo is addressing this through helping clients target a reduction in the use of physical intervention (ie not just teaching staff how to do it better!) If we get these steps right we can reduce incidents involving the use of force and resulting harm. We will not stop all the injuries or deaths because of circumstances beyond our control, but we can and must reduce them.
It’s important that employers are clear as to the level of training required by staff performing different roles, and that this is based on risk. Some door supervisors and security officers will need training over and above the Security Industry Authority’s physical intervention requirement. Incident response teams spring to mind here, but many security officers will need no physical intervention training, or a lower level of training (for example, skills to avoid assaults and disengage but not to restrain).
This may result in some security companies switching door supervision badge holders to a security guarding licence at renewal, and continuing to provide physical intervention training as and when required on a client contract basis (a practice already adopted by he more professional security guarding companies).
Clear guidelines for members of staff
To reduce staff, customer and business exposure to risk and the ‘unintended consequences of physical intervention training’, employers need to provide clear guidance to staff members on certain activities such as ejection and arrest.
Further considerations for employers in reducing the use of force/physical intervention include:
It’s important that employers of door supervisors ensure staff needing physical intervention training get it now and do not prolong the exposure to risk by waiting until licence renewal time.
Be aware that the Security Industry Authority will be updating employer guidance on violence reduction and physical intervention matters for the licensed retail sector. The latest Skills for Security versions for both retail and NHS security functions can already be downloaded from its website and from our own portal (the link to which is below).
Bill Fox is founder and chairman of Maybo
