Despite the continuing political uncertainty over the SIA, the Coalition has agreed that physical intervention (PI) skills training will become mandatory for all door supervisors. Bill Fox of trainers Maybo answers some questions on what this means and why it matters.
Question: Bill, perhaps you could start by setting out what ‘physical intervention skills training’ means for trainers, trainers of trainers, security managers who may employ door-badged people, and indeed the door supervisor?
Bill Fox: Physical intervention (PI) is a broad term that covers a range of skills from how to defend oneself to how to physically escort or restrain another person. The SIA requirement covers basic knowledge and skills to avoid assault and safer methods for dealing with common tasks such as ejection. It raises awareness of restraint related risks but employers need to provide higher level restraint skills if required.
Q: Could you say something about the actual ‘moves’ or techniques of physical intervention? Is it all physical, for example, or does there have to be some understanding of ‘body language’ and saying the right things (or when to be silent).
BF: Conflict management skills are fundamental and are covered before participation in PI training and reinforced during it. There is also a significant level of knowledge surrounding medical implications of use of force and how to reduce risk. The practical content starts with positioning to avoid assault and releases from common holds. The focus of the escort skills and holds is on alternatives to the high risk methods such as neck holds that are commonly used on the door.
Q: Could you tell readers who aren’t trainers, or in the door or event security sectors, why ‘physical intervention skills’ are so necessary, life and death even, but problematical?
BF: There are times when security teams need to act to prevent harm, eject or detain. This puts staff and the public at risk and leaves employers potentially liable if such action is foreseeable and they have not taught safe methods. This can apply to retail and hospital security roles as well as door supervision. Training is just one aspect; it is vital that employers also act to reduce use of restraint as far as practicable, as it always carries a degree of risk.
Q: The fact that this added training is coming but only some seven years after the original door superviser (DS) badge roll-out would suggest there’s a call for it, but there’s been hurdles?
BF: There is understandably nervousness surrounding use of physical skills and it has taken time for an acceptance that staff are using their own methods in the absence of proper training. There has been tremendous support from the industry, the awarding organisations and the SIA for its introduction. It is fair to say that recent restraint related deaths and concerns from the coroner’s courts may have tipped the balance for ministers.
Q: What difference will this training make and what are the key success factors?
BF: To make a real impact the training must be supported by employer policy and guidance and with effective workplace supervision and practice. With these in place staff and customers will be safer and there will be less injuries and deaths. We won’t prevent them all however as there are many factors that can lead to a tragedy, and staff cannot control all of these. The SIA-endorsed PI training unit will increasingly become the benchmark for in-house security teams that need PI, and it is already signposted in guidance from NHS Regulator, NHS Protect. We will also see many DS badge holders switching to security licenses on renewal, if they are not working on licensed premises or roles that require PI..
Q: To talk about a specific, to what extent is it a risk if the person being troublesome or violent is drunk or drugged?
BF: Alcohol complicates situations in a number of ways as the individual can be harder to communicate with and more vulnerable. Recent research shows that cocaine (a powerful stimulant) intake increases the risk of heart attack considerably. A cocktail of alcohol and drugs combined with pre-existing health issues can create a time bomb in the stress in a violent struggle.
Q: What if any wider applications are there? For retail, hospital and general guarding? Or for non-security but front-line staff?
BF: The driver for change has been night venues which have experienced the most tragedies. There can be significant risk in some retail and hospital settings but this depends on the specifics of the role, policy etc. Employer guidance is available from Skills for Security and the SIA on these issues in Retail and NHS Security and at maybo.com. Some retailers for example encourage arrest, an activity which the British Retail Consortium can evidence carries substantially heightened risk, whilst others focus on deterrence and let aggressive individuals leave. I think training in these areas will be subject to risk based decisions.
Q: Is there enough provision for this type of training or will employers struggle to source it?
BF: We don’t know the SIA timetable as yet but there will be a run in period and there is already substantial capacity for delivery of the SIA competency requirement. Maybo centres alone are currently training in the region of 3000 individuals a month including those preparing for the London Olympics. It is important to acknowledge that many professional security and event companies (and in-house teams) are already ahead on this and have been delivering PI for some time, within a robust policy and risk reduction framework.
