In this second article, Brodie Paterson argues that the Millfields Charter’s proposal to ban the use of prone restraint is based on a misinterpretation of the research evidence and is therefore not the solution the founders of the charter believe it to be. Instead he outlines an alternative strategy to improve service users’ safety which has proved to be effective

The sentiments of those who support the Millfields Charter in seeking to improve service user safety and, in particular, to decrease the risk of further restraint-related deaths in health and social care, are unquestionably laudable. However, the approach chosen in pursuit of such a goal – seeking to ‘ban’ prone restraint – is one with which I, alongside many others, disagree profoundly. This is because as a strategy I believe the proposal is based on misinterpretations of the current research evidence and on an over-simplification of the complex task involved in promoting safer services that is ultimately misleading. As HL Mencken observed: ‘For every problem, there is one solution which is simple, neat and wrong.’