Guidance

Guidance for inspectors and providers on using restraint, physical intervention and restrictions of liberty

Updated 3 November 2026

Introduction

Inspectors should use this guidance to evaluate how those working with children create a positive environment where children and young people can live and learn, and where staff interact positively with children.

This guidance applies to all inspections.^{[footnote 1]} The principles we set out here are important and apply to all children. Inspectors consider them carefully in relation to settings that provide care or education for children who have neuro-disability, communication support needs or special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND).

This guidance is not a summary of the law or guidance on the area of physical intervention and restriction of liberty. This is about our approach to inspection.

Our approach

Restraint of any kind can have a negative impact on a child’s mental health and damage relationships between children and those who care for them.

All behaviour is a form of communication. Those who care for children have a duty to understand what a child’s behaviour communicates. We expect staff to respond in ways that help everyone to stay safe and that help everyone to value and respect each child.

We start from a perspective that respects the child’s rights, before we consider whether incidents of physical restraint or restrictions on children’s liberty comply with the legislative framework, national minimum standards and relevant guidance.^{[footnote 2]}

We also start from the premise that staff should work positively and confidently with children. They should find the least intrusive way possible to support and empower them and keep them safe. The foundation of good practice in working with children should be:

• protecting and promoting children’s rights

• recognising that staff have a responsibility to understand children’s needs

• ensuring a positive culture built on relationships of trust, understanding and respect

• understanding triggers and finding solutions

• if incidents do occur, knowing enough about the child and positive behaviour support techniques to defuse the situation and/or distract the child wherever possible

Using restraint is permissible.^{[footnote 3]} But it should be for the shortest time possible and only when there is no other alternative to help children and staff to stay safe. It should never be used routinely and must be used proportionately.

When reviewing incidents of restraint, we will consider how the staff balanced the impact of the restraint on the child with the original risk. That does not prevent staff from taking the steps they may need to keep children safe, in emergency situations or when children may be at severe risk of harm or death. For example, if a child was about to run in front of a car, we would expect staff to take immediate action to prevent serious injury or death.

We expect staff to support children by understanding the impact that a child’s history has had on their behaviour, including any past trauma or SEND, and seek specialist help when necessary. We expect staff to be skilled and confident in finding the best ways to keep children safe: ways that promote their rights, respect their dignity and help equip them for the future.

Nothing in this guidance is intended to undermine actions that we would expect from any reasonable parent to keep their child safe or to imply that staff should adopt a ‘no touch’ approach.

In practice, this means that we will set out to question and understand any type of physical intervention or restriction on children’s lives, including the use of isolation/seclusion in schools. We expect leaders to ensure that staff are appropriately trained to avoid any practice that may expose a child to trauma, and to deal immediately and effectively with any such practice, should it occur. We expect staff to know how to avoid using restraint and to be able to identify other interventions at the earliest opportunity.

We will check that staff understand how to balance ensuring physical safety with understanding the impact of the restraint on the child’s emotional wellbeing. We also expect them to help children develop the skills they need to understand and respond constructively to their own feelings and behaviour.

Understanding culture and practice

In order for good practice to flourish, it is essential to have the right culture. How children’s behaviour is supported and their personal development is nurtured will be reflected in the environment surrounding them.

In an open and enabling culture, staff carry out effective risk assessments that balance a child’s need to explore and learn new skills with the need to keep them safe. If staff carry out effective assessment and planning based on their understanding of individual children’s needs, personalities and wishes, this will help them to spot signs of distress at an early stage. That will, in turn, help them to support children without needing to use restraint or restriction.

Offering children information, new experiences, and opportunities to develop new skills increases the choices they can make. A risk-averse culture or a ‘no contact’ policy do not help children to develop their potential.

When we are considering whether an action complies with the legal requirements surrounding the use of restraint, we ask:

• Was this action legal and necessary? For example, was it taken to prevent a child from injuring themselves or someone else or to stop them causing serious harm to property? Was it taken in a school to maintain good order and discipline?^{[footnote 4]}

• Could this action be considered ‘reasonable’ in this particular circumstance? Was it the minimum force necessary? Was it proportionate?

Restraint that deliberately inflicts pain should never be used.

It is always illegal to use force as a punishment.

In all residential settings and schools, we expect staff to build effective relationships with the children they are responsible for. We must not forget that, as well as having a general duty of care, staff in children’s homes must (by regulation) build trusting and respectful relationships with children. When looking at how incidents have been dealt with, we need to give significant weight to the requirements relating to positive relationships. These are set out clearly for children’s homes in the ‘positive relationships’ quality standard (regulation 11) of the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015.

When we question an approach, we aim to challenge constructively. Just because restraint is permissible does not mean that it is the best or only way to manage a concern or situation. Therefore, we should be challenging staff through our inspection activity to consider their own practice and to think hard about the most constructive and positive ways to work with children.

When we assess restrictive practices, including restraint, we consider the culture. We expect leaders to show how they promote a positive culture that minimises any restrictive practices. This will include:

• involving children, parents, carers and staff in reviewing practice

• training and developing staff so that they understand children’s unique needs and how they communicate

• using positive approaches to support children’s behaviour

• establishing effective reporting and reflective practice

There are different ways to approach the same situation. Some providers are more likely to find safe, creative and child-focused solutions than to intervene physically and/or restrict a child’s liberty. As inspectors, by questioning and understanding practice, we can be a force for improvement and encourage providers to find better solutions to the challenges they face.

If we always start with the question ‘does this practice comply with the regulation/guidance about restraint?’, we may miss opportunities to challenge the provider’s practice and help them look differently at how they work with children. We cannot underestimate the emotional impact that incidents can have on children, including long-term, adverse effects on their mental health.

Physical restraint

The practice of physical restraint includes many approaches, some of which, although lawful, are more restrictive and more likely to create an unsafe or harmful environment for children. If they are used, this may indicate that children’s needs are not being met consistently.

The following triggers will always make us curious and cause us to explore staff’s practice and its impact on children further:^{[footnote 5]}

• using prone/‘ground’ holds and/or deliberately taking children to the floor ^{[footnote 6]}. Prone/’ground’ holds are not illegal. Some children will ‘fall to the floor’ deliberately during a restraint, and this does not make the hold a prone hold. However, the hold can restrict breathing, and any use of it must be explored. For example, children should not be restrained in a way that affects their airway, breathing or circulation, such as by covering the mouth and/or nose, or applying pressure to the neck region or abdomen. The use of force can be dangerous, particularly where it occurs on the ground. If a child is unintentionally held on the ground, staff should release their holds or re-position into a safer alternative or standing position as quickly as possible. Where appropriate, the child should receive a medical assessment and treatment for any injuries as soon as possible.

• restraining children in their bedrooms and/or on their beds

• long periods of physical intervention

• frequent or lengthy periods of single separation or ‘managing away’ in secure children’s homes

• high numbers of staff involved in an incident

• situations that are escalating, with restraint being used more frequently

• restraint practices becoming the norm/being applied universally or indiscriminately

• children sustaining injuries

• repeated incidents or patterns that are easily identifiable

• incidents that involve care staff being used on school premises to ‘manage’ children’s behaviour (as opposed to staff who hold multiple roles)

• incidents that involve children being administered prescribed medication on an ‘as required’ basis to calm, relax or sedate them, known as chemical restraint

• incidents that involve the intentional use of equipment to physically restrict children, with or without staff being present (for example, safe space beds, a wheelchair, reins or a safety harness, or a seatbelt)

• using ‘calm rooms’ or seclusion rooms (or similar terminology) where children are isolated. Although a period of time to ‘calm down’ may be appropriate for some children, it should not be used as a punishment. Inspectors should explore how children are physically taken to such rooms and the role that staff play in such situations, for example holding the door handle so that the child cannot leave the room

While there is nothing in statutory guidance that says that any of the above is not permissible, inspectors should consider whether children have been safeguarded throughout. We need to understand:

• why providers believed these to be the best or only solutions

• how the action was proportionate to the circumstances

• any impact on the child

• how the child’s rights were respected

Staff working with children need to use their professional judgement in deciding how best to respond to a situation. Inspectors can only view each circumstance on an individual basis. Staff’s professional judgement should be underpinned by a good understanding of how best to support children’s individual needs. This includes how children communicate their wishes and feelings. Leaders will need to explain to us how they understand the impact their intervention had on the child, why this was the right intervention, and what they are doing to reduce the need for such an approach in the future.

Inspectors will not know in detail the myriad ‘behaviour management’ and restraint techniques that exist. The names of holds can be ambiguous and misleading and can be based on different models of physical intervention. If inspectors are in any doubt, they should ask for pictures or diagrams or demonstrations by staff (not on children) that focus on de-escalation. They will want to be assured that providers review the records of restraint to identify any anomalies in the use of physical measures and take action to address poor practice. These can be included in the evidence base if needed.

Guidance on physical restraint

There is no universally recognised accreditation system or government standard for models of restraint and/or physical intervention for children. However, it is generally considered to be good practice to use a positive approach that focuses on de-escalation. This approach will have the individual child at the heart of any assessment of need, analysis of behaviour and devising of strategies that promote continuous development.

Any good behaviour support plan will result from a multi-disciplinary review that includes children and their important adults. There will be regular, evidence-based reviews of how well the plan is working. Consider some of the points referenced in the Department for Education’s guidance on ‘Restrictive interventions including use of reasonable force in schools’.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has developed guidance for managing restraints in secure training centres and young offender institutions. ‘Minimising and managing physical restraint’ (MMPR) aims to help staff understand the triggers for young people’s unsafe behaviour and minimise their use of restraint by using de-escalation and diversion strategies instead. Staff should explore all the available options for managing an incident (such as de-escalation techniques and verbal communication) before using restraint. Records must explain why restraint was necessary.

There are differing views on whether interventions such as guiding children by the hand (sometimes called ‘touch support’, or ‘guide’) are restraint or not. The Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 state that if the intervention does not include an element of force, then it is not restraint. If it is not restraint, it does not need to be recorded as such. A provider may choose to record these interventions to understand what is happening for children and improve practice, but that is their decision. However, the schools guidance, takes a broader view and school inspectors should consider it.

In this guidance, we use the Department for Education’s definition of ‘restraint’:

Restraint: a term used in legislation referring to a non-disciplinary intervention which immobilises a pupil or limits their movement. This may or may not include direct physical contact. For example, holding a pupil’s arms to their sides or removing a pupil’s crutches would both be considered forms of restraint. ^{[footnote 7]}

Inspectors should avoid getting into debates about whether interventions are restraint. If staff intended to use any form of physical intervention to direct a child to do something that the child did not want to do, or to divert them away from something they did want to do, our concerns should be:

• the impact on children

• how managers or staff monitor, understand and review the practice

• what the risks were and why restraint was the least restrictive option

• how practice then evolves

• whether that leads to fewer incidents over time

Restrictions on children’s liberty

We should always question the use of restrictions on children’s movements and/or when children are observed at times which appear obtrusive or unnecessary, for example while they are using the toilet, bathing or changing. This will help us to understand whether this was the best or only way to support the child and keep them safe. We need to know what else has been tried, and that the practice is kept under review and steps are taken to use a less restrictive approach wherever possible.

Children’s needs do change over time and any approaches to supporting them should be responsive to their current needs. Practitioners need to recognise this and consider what the least possible restrictions are to keep a child safe and promote their independence.

We should always question blanket approaches to restrictions so that we understand whether they meet individual children’s needs. For example, when a provider routinely locks common areas such as kitchens or lounges, we need to probe further before arriving at any conclusions. This action does not overtly restrict or deprive a child of their liberty, and there may be very good reasons to lock various parts of the building, such as rooms that contain cleaning products or spare/extra equipment. It could also be to prevent children from accessing other children’s bedrooms. A provider may also lock certain parts of the building during a time of crisis, to help manage the situation.

In all instances, the provider needs to give us evidence for why they have taken a particular approach. They also need to give us evidence that staff have been proportionate with individual children, and recognised that a group of children can all be at different stages of understanding and development. The provider should also have considered whether the situation and/or the response has escalated, or if the restriction is a universal one that has resulted from a single incident.

Types of restriction

Isolation

Terms such as ‘time out’, ‘isolation’, ‘chill out’, ‘single separation’ and ‘managing away’ may suggest that a child has been segregated and had their liberty restricted. Locking a door is only one method of preventing someone from leaving a room. Other methods, such as leaving alone a disabled child who cannot move independently or making a real and/or perceived threat to the child, can equally be a restriction.

On some occasions, a child may find that being left on their own is a positive intervention at times of distress, but these interventions should be used sparingly, and the situation must be managed sensitively. Long-term isolation and segregation are never acceptable for children.^{[footnote 8]} Human interaction and opportunities for intellectual stimulation are essential in helping children to understand and respond well to their feelings, and ultimately control their behaviour.

We should always explore why isolation is being used and its impact on children, even when it is part of a court order. While a court order (deprivation of liberty order) may permit restrictions, it does not mean that these must always be used, as the order is permissive. Inspectors should find out from providers how they are interpreting the order to ensure that the measures it contains have been interpreted correctly. If the local authority has indicated that it is likely to ask the court to discharge (cancel or end) the order in the coming months, inspectors should discuss with the provider their plans for reducing or removing all restrictions. For example, if the child does not go out unless accompanied by staff, ask how staff are developing the child’s skills and ability to navigate the community on their own.

Equipment

There are many types of equipment that, when used under supervision and with occupational therapy oversight and training, can make children’s lives more comfortable. Sensory rooms and tents can offer some children positive experiences. Specially adapted wheelchairs and seats give children physical support, making their surroundings more accessible to them. Weighted belts and limb bands can help them to move around their environment more confidently. Weighted blankets and quilts can help them to block out unwanted sensory information and feel more secure.

When this kind of equipment is used, we should take account of how well staff know and use the child’s occupational therapy programme. When children are using any kind of additional equipment, we expect staff to observe them constantly for signs of distress and take prompt action to ease their discomfort. If children cannot easily leave equipment such as sensory rooms or tents, or staff actively discourage them from leaving, then that could become a restriction. In addition to behaviour support plans (schools), we expect to see detailed care plans (care settings), that set out how such equipment is to be used. The plans should be regularly reviewed by an appropriately qualified person with the child, parents and carers.

Restrictions can also include the use of high bed sides or high door handles so that children cannot leave a bed or room without staff support. We recognise that children have a right to develop independence and exercise choice. We expect the provider to be taking action to reduce the need for such measures in the future. The same principles set out in this guidance apply to our approach – that is, to question and understand.

Restriction in children’s homes as part of an education, health and care plan

In children’s homes, the guide to the quality standards makes clear reference to how some restrictive interventions can form part of a child’s education, health and care plan.

This does not permit poor practice but does exempt the home from some recording. We still expect the home to review staff’s practice regularly and analyse whether the intervention remains appropriate for the child.

Residential special schools and children’s homes with education on site

The requirements about the use of restraint differ between school settings and children’s homes.

In April 2026, the government published new guidance on the use of reasonable force in schools. This replaced the ‘Use of reasonable force’ guidance from 2013 and combines advice with some statutory responsibilities. It introduces a new definition of seclusion as ‘a non-disciplinary intervention involving keeping a pupil confined to a place away from others and prevented from leaving’. ^{[footnote 9]}

The guidance also makes it mandatory for maintained schools and local authorities to record and report incidents involving the use of reasonable force and seclusion. There is more on this in the ‘Recording’ section. School leaders should also develop and implement a policy on the use of restrictive interventions aligned with the school’s legal duties.

A consistent approach to managing behaviour meets children’s and young people’s needs best. Therefore, we expect the regulations and statutory guidance for children’s homes about restraint to be applied consistently in both educational and children’s home settings where they are on the same site. If there are differences between the home and school, we need to understand the impact on children, how this is managed and how it is in the children’s best interests.

We should consider the likely impact on individual children and their understanding of the distinction between the home environment and the education environment, such as whether they are in separate buildings.

Recording

Schools are required to record and report incidents of the use of restraint and seclusion. They must have a procedure in place for recording each incident in which a member of staff uses force on a child. Incidents must be recorded as soon as practicable after the event and not later than on the same day.

Schools should also, in most circumstances, inform parents when their child had been restrained. We can ask schools why they have not informed parents, following any use of restraint. If their reason is that informing parents would place a child at greater risk, then we expect the school to have made a safeguarding referral.

Although the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015 set out what should be recorded, several variables, such as ‘description of the measure’, are still open to interpretation by providers and inspectors. The regulations require the provider to confirm that they have spoken to the child about the use of restraint, but do not require a written account of this conversation or that it be carried out by an independent person.

The guide to Children’s Homes Regulations, including the quality standards, states that children should be encouraged to add their views and comments to the record of restraint and be offered the opportunity to access an advocacy support to help them with this. However, this is not a requirement.

Given all this, it is not helpful for us to focus too much on what is recorded. Our emphasis should be on the impact of what is recorded.

• How does the recording influence practice?

• Does the manager or school leader monitor trends and patterns about individual children, individual staff and groups of staff (such as shift patterns or lessons)?

• Does the manager or school leader identify, explore, and take action to improve, any poor staff practice?

• Does the manager or school leader take account of the views of children, including those who communicate non-verbally?

This requires good-quality recording but also aggregation and intelligent use of the data. Rather than focusing on isolated concerns about the content of individual records, our inspection time should focus on this analysis as a way of determining how a school or home is safeguarding the child’s welfare.

Some of the differences in interpretation arise because the records can be designed to serve several purposes. For example, a manager of a children’s home may use them to review practice, a child to understand their history, and a placing authority to know what has happened in the placement.

The requirement to hold individual children’s case records does not prescribe the level of detail that is required, and neither should we. The important thing is to focus on the impact of the records and whether sufficient information is recorded (in the case of children’s homes) that sets out the date and circumstances.

If the school and residential services are on the same site, it is reasonable to expect any incidents to be recorded where the incident occurred. What is most important is that the relevant managers can review practice and make sense of what is happening for a child. If a provider has different arrangements, our questions should be about what these mean for the child and how leaders can use the information to support improvements over time.

Use of isolation and seclusion in schools

The Department for Education guidance ‘Behaviour in schools: advice for headteachers and school staff’ allows schools to adopt a policy where disruptive pupils can be placed in isolation from other pupils for a limited period.

If a school uses isolation rooms as a disciplinary penalty, this should be made clear in its behaviour policy. As with other disciplinary penalties, schools must act lawfully, reasonably and proportionately in all cases. Any separate room should only be used when it is in the best interests of the child and other pupils.

A school should only consider using isolation that prevents a child from leaving a room of their own free will in exceptional circumstances, and even then only if it reduces the risk presented by the child to themselves and others.

Isolation can also be used to give a child a place of safety. The school must also ensure the health and safety of pupils and meet any safeguarding and pupil welfare requirements.

The place to which the child is confined should be safe and not feel threatening or intimidating to them, and they should be supervised at all times. If seclusion is used, the incident must be recorded and reported no later than the same day.

Schools should make reasonable adjustments to ensure that expectations of pupils with SEND are developmentally appropriate and fair.^{[footnote 10]} It would not be fair, for example, to isolate a child who has attention deficit hyperactive disorder or other special needs because they were not able to sit still when required to do so. Equally, for some children in care, the experience of isolation and/or seclusion can reinforce trauma and/or result in an escalating scenario that leads to disciplinary measures for the child.

We should question and seek to understand any use of isolation or seclusion in any setting.^{[footnote 11]}

Some pupils are likely to feel ‘locked in’ even if they are not. A threat or the presence of staff outside the door may be enough to keep them from leaving of their own free will. Inspectors will explore these incidents if they believe that this has happened.

Our focus should not be on whether an act is called seclusion or isolation. Children’s experiences are what matters.

Summary

There is no automatic inspection outcome attached to any of the matters raised in this guidance. As always, we need to carefully assess each case on its own merits. What we are making clear is that our starting point should be the child and their experiences. There are triggers that should always make us question practice. If we have concerns, we identify whether and how the practice has failed to meet the relevant regulatory requirements.

Similarly, providers’ decisions to intervene to keep children safe may be an important part of ensuring that children do not hurt themselves or others. In some instances, the decision to intervene may be right but the actions disproportionate. In others, the actions will be proportionate and legitimate.

We know that emergencies and unforeseen circumstances can happen. We may find instances where there was an unplanned response to prevent harm in an emergency. If this has happened, we expect to see evidence that an immediate review and risk assessment took place and that there is a plan that considers the use of proactive strategies and less restrictive options.

In all cases, we should focus our attention on the rationale for the intervention (whether it was physical restraint or some other type of restriction) and on the impact of the post-incident review – that is, the experience of the child and the extent to which both staff and children experience a restorative approach following any incident. Inspectors should recognise the progress that providers make as well as any evidence of their willingness to keep reflecting on and challenging their own practice.

We must always recognise when providers are doing the best they can and when children are having difficult times. There may be times when interventions increase but the provider can explain these changes clearly. We need to take the time to understand what is happening and why it is happening.

Our primary focus should be on what is happening for children. We should be more focused on how information is used to improve practice than on how it is recorded.

We can and should continually question practice from inspection to inspection, because we would expect to see changes in response to children’s needs and development. This may mean that what is acceptable at one inspection is less acceptable at the next and vice versa. We should always have ‘fresh eyes’. This is not the same as being inconsistent.

Annex A: Single separation in secure children’s homes

Enforced or directed ‘single separation’ in a secure children’s home is when a child or young person is locked in their room or other area by themselves, or when they are placed in the area and have the perception that they cannot leave.

‘Managing away’ is when a child is locked in an area of the secure children’s home but with a staff member present, or when they are placed in the area and have the perception that they cannot leave.

These methods of control should be used only when:

• they are necessary to prevent a child from absconding from the home

• they are necessary to prevent a child from seriously harming themselves or others

• there is no other way of keeping young people or staff safe

• there is no other way of preventing significant damage to property

They should not be used as a sanction or punishment.

Both these methods of control must be supported by clear policies and procedures, recorded as required by regulation 35 of the Children’s Home (England) Regulations 2015 and subject to oversight and governance by managers.

Annex B: European Convention on Human Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that belong to everyone in Britain. It incorporates the rights from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law. Some rights are absolute, but most are qualified, which means the state may ‘interfere’ with them in specified circumstances, provided that it has good reason and abides by strict safeguards.

The key human rights from the ECHR that need to be considered in relation to restraint are: Article 3 (prohibition against torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty), Article 8 (right to private and family life, including personal autonomy and respect for physical and mental integrity), and Article 14 (non-discrimination in the enjoyment of ECHR rights).

Annex C: References

‘Reducing the need for restraint and restrictive intervention: children and young people with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum conditions and mental health difficulties in health and social care services and education settings’, Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, 2019

‘Use of reasonable force in schools’, Department for Education, 2013

The Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015

‘Guide to the Children’s Homes Regulations, including the quality standards’, Department for Education, 2015

Education and Inspections Act 2006, sections 91 to 93

‘Behaviour and discipline in schools: advice for headteachers and school staff’, Department for Education, 2016

‘The special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’, Department for Education and Department of Health, 2015

1. Different guidance applies to practice in schools and this document reflects those differences. Inspectors are expected to be familiar with the relevant guidance for the establishment they are inspecting. ↩

2. Our thinking and approach must take account of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). See Annex B. ↩

3. As long as it is compliant with the legislation. ↩

4. Note that restraint can be used to prevent a child absconding from a secure children’s home. In the case of a school, teachers have the power to use reasonable force to maintain good order and discipline. ↩

5. A panel of experts (Physical Control in Care Medical Panel – 2008) identified that certain restraint techniques presented an unacceptable risk when used on children and young people. These are ‘seated double embrace’, the ‘double basket hold’ and the ‘nose distraction technique’. ↩

6. None of these ‘holds’ are illegal but they pose a risk to children and we should always question whether they are proportionate. ↩

7. ‘Restrictive interventions, including use of reasonable force, in schools’, Department for Education, April 2026, page 5. ↩

8. When this is used as a punishment, it must satisfy section 91 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 if in school hours and section 92 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 outside school hours. ↩

9. ‘Restrictive interventions, including use of reasonable force, in schools’, Department for Education, April 2026, page 8. ↩

10. As set out in ‘The special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’, Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care, 2015. ↩

11. The particular issues relating to secure children’s homes are set out in Annex A. ↩