Fabric Material Suitable For Intervention Apparatus For Inhibiting Challenging Behaviour, A Bean Bag Product, and An Intervention Apparatus For Inhibiting Challenging Behaviour

The present invention relates to a fabric material which is suitable for use in an intervention apparatus.

When caring for individuals having intellectual and developmental disabilities, it is common for the carers to experience challenging behaviour, which can be physically aggressive or intimidatory. Challenging behaviours such as aggression, property destruction or self-injury, occurring in individuals with intellectual disabilities are still an ongoing cause of concern for all supporters of this vulnerable population of individuals. Lowered quality of life experiences are commonly associated with challenging behaviour. Organisations still report high use of restrictive practices, such as physical and chemical restraint (Department of Health, 2007; Unwin and Deb, 2010) to manage incidents, despite weak or controversial evidence for the effectiveness of these approaches (Allen, 2001 ; Unwin et al, 2010).

Challenging or distressed behaviour is often exhibited to communicate unmet support needs for such individuals, since their verbal communication skills are commonly limited. Indeed, there is a direct correlation between the degree of intellectual and developmental disability and the severity of behavioural problems, indicating that communication impairments account for a high degree of the serious behavioural difficulties. Such behaviour can also be self-injurious, primarily causing harm to the individual concerned. It is common for such individuals to have complementary issues such as obesity, which often means that they physically outmatch their carers. Equally, other factors can trigger the individuals, such as noise, inadequate stimulation, routine changes, poor carer communication, and negative interactions with other individuals. As such, carers require mechanisms which can be employed to support de-escalation, such as by making an environment safe by gathering potential projectiles, engaging in positive social interactions, creating distractions or alternative stimulation for the individual.

Sadly, when all proactive attempts to prevent the challenging behaviour are exhausted or have failed to work, it becomes common for physical restraint to be used, incapacitating the individual displaying challenging behaviour for the safety of themselves or others. Physical restraint is a traumatic experience for the individual and carers, which may then reinforce the behavioural issues of the individual. Furthermore, there have been many instances of death in care settings where restraint has been used, prompting UK parliamentary guidance to be issued on this subject matter (Mental Health Units, Use of Force Act, 2018) otherwise known as Seni’s Law. Physical restraint also potentially requires many carers to be involved; in some instances, up to five may be required. Individuals can then be subjected to sometimes painful and dehumanising restraint techniques such as being placed on their knees with hands restrained behind their backs.

Other possible methods for management of challenging behaviour are equally problematic, including chemical restraint, mechanical restraint, seclusion or isolation. In some scenarios, challenging behaviour may also display as property destruction, which is a different challenge for the carer. Restraint can also be problematic for the individuals, who may become injured, and this is equally applicable to the carers.

Care services incur associated costs to staff and individuals being supported, such as stress (Devereux et al, 2009), burn out (Hatton and Emerson, 1993), high staff turnover (Felce et al, 1993) and abuse (Department of Health, 2012). Challenging behaviour may also lead to placement breakdowns (Allen, 1999) and, as a last resort, expensive, out of area placements may be sought to provide a treatment programme to individuals who display such behaviours (Goodman, Nix, & Ritchie, 2006; Philips & Rose, 2010).

Any alternative means for combating challenging behaviour which does not involve physical restraint must consider the challenges of working with such individuals. For instance, there is a need to ensure that there are no additional risks posed to the individuals, by using non-fire- retardant materials, but said materials must also be assessed for toxicity; individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities are often prone to chewing inedible objects, and anything with coating materials for fire retardancy may prove poisonous.

Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) is acknowledged to be the most effective approach for prevention and intervention with the challenging behaviour of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Department of Health, 2007; Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Psychological Society, & Royal Speech and Language Therapists, 2007; National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2015). Behaviour can be described as challenging when “it is of such an intensity, frequency, or duration as to threaten the quality of life and/or the physical safety of the individual or others and it is likely to lead to responses that are restrictive, aversive or result in exclusion.” (Royal College of Psychiatrists, British Psychological Society, Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, 2007).

It is an object of the present invention to obviate or overcome the above-referenced problems.

According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided a fabric material comprising a blend of nylon, cotton, and modacrylic fibres, the fabric material comprising less than or equal to 10% nylon, between 60% and 65% modacrylic, and between 26% and 32% cotton, wherein a warp yarn comprises the nylon and cotton, and a weft yarn comprises the modacrylic. Optionally, the fabric material may comprise between 7% and 10% nylon.

Optionally, the fabric material may comprise 10% nylon, 30% cotton, and 60% modacrylic.

In an alternative embodiment, the fabric material may comprise 9% nylon, 26% cotton, and 65% modacrylic.

Preferably, the fibres may be in a herringbone weave.

The fabric material provides many benefits. It is inherently flame retardant and naturally meets British standards BS 5852: Clause 10:2006 (2011) to CRIB 5 standard, at least. The material is surprisingly lightweight, and narrow in depth, given it is flame retardant. The material is washable to a commercial laundry standard, that is, up to 90°C, has high tensile and tear strength, as well as having a natural handle or grip. The high heat-resistance also means that the fabric can be ironed on high settings without sticking. The fabric may have utility in many different contexts, including but not limited to the medical or veterinary market, upholstery, children’s clothes or toys, and clothing, particularly fashionable clothing. The fabric will also accept dye, unlike many flame retardant fabrics, which are colour-limited.

No fire retardant chemicals are required. Flame retardant chemical applications are an area of increasing concern for the textile industry. Many fire retardant chemicals used in textiles have been found to be potentially hazardous to human health and the environment, with countries such as the United States of America banning specific chemical compounds across several states in attempts to prevent further environmental harm from affecting their citizen’s health. Fire retardant chemicals have long been associated with allergic reactions and sensitivities in some individuals. Direct contact with treated textiles or inhalation of airborne particles from these chemicals can trigger respiratory issues, skin irritations, or other allergic responses. Additionally, these chemicals may persist in the environment and have the potential to leach into soil and water sources, leading to long-term ecological impacts. Over time, fire retardant chemicals can migrate from textiles into the surrounding environment. This migration can occur through contact with skin, dust, or through the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). This raises concerns about prolonged exposure and the potential accumulation of these chemicals in the body. Fire retardant treatments can impact the overall performance and durability of textiles. They may alter the fabric’s appearance, texture, breathability, and other properties. In some cases, the addition of fire retardant chemicals can reduce the lifespan and functionality of the textile. The use of fire retardant chemicals in textiles is subject to various regulations and standards, which vary across different countries and regions. Compliance with these regulations can be complex and costly for manufacturers. The addition of fire retardant chemicals to textiles can hinder their recyclability and reusability. It may complicate the process of recycling or repurposing textile waste, thus impacting efforts towards a more sustainable and circular economy.

Furthermore, the textile has been developed with “eco-consciousness” in mind. “Eco- consciousness” refers to making decisions that have a positive environmental impact, as well as being socially responsible when it comes to sustainability. Having a blend of natural and synthetic fibres mixed together can offer several benefits for sustainability. These include: Enhanced Durability: Synthetic fibres, such as nylon, are known for their strength and resistance to wear and tear. When blended with natural fibres like cotton the combined blend can possess improved durability compared to pure natural fibres which can extend the lifespan of the garment or textile; Reduced Resource Consumption: Synthetic fibres often require less water and energy during manufacturing compared to some natural fibres. Blending them with natural fibres can help reduce overall resource consumption, including water usage and energy consumption, making the manufacturing process more sustainable with reduced greenhouse gas emissions; Increased Performance: Synthetic fibres can enhance the performance characteristics of natural fibres. For example, blending natural fibres with synthetic fibres can improve moisture-wicking properties, elasticity, and wrinkle resistance. This can result in more functional and versatile textiles that offer greater comfort and durability; Innovation: The combination of different fibres opens up possibilities for experimentation and innovation in fabric design, in terms of texture, appearance, and performance. This can lead to the development of new sustainable materials with improved properties and reduced environmental impacts; Care and Maintenance: Synthetic fibres are often more resistant to wrinkling and shrinking compared to natural fibres. By incorporating synthetic fibres into blends, garments may require less ironing or special care, reducing the energy and time needed for maintenance; and Lower Cost: Depending on the specific blend and availability of materials, blending natural and synthetic fibres can sometimes result in a more cost-effective solution. This affordability can make sustainable options more accessible to a broader range of consumers.

According to a second aspect of the invention, there is provided a bean bag product having an outer fabric cover comprising a fabric material in accordance with the first aspect of the invention.

Such a bean bag product will inherit all of the advantages of the fabric material outlined above. This may be suitable for use in schools or other educational settings, for instance, as well as in entertainment venues, such as nightclubs or bars.

According to a third aspect of the invention, there is provided an intervention apparatus for inhibiting challenging behaviour, the intervention apparatus comprising: an inner sac containing a filler material; and an outer fabric cover having an internal volume within which the inner sac is received, the inner sac being freely movable within the internal volume relative to the outer fabric cover.

The present invention provides a means for providing intervention by a carer in an instance where an individual is presenting with challenging behaviour, such as hitting, kicking, or throwing of objects. The intervention apparatus is non-restrictive, in that the individual is not constrained or bound in any manner. The intervention apparatus acts as a shield which a trained user can deploy in a manner which makes it exceedingly difficult for the challenging individual to cause harm to themselves or others; self-injurious behaviour, such as head banging, is challenging to deal with, but is most likely to cause harm to the individual themselves. Options for using the intervention apparatus include: ‘rock’, in which the outer fabric cover is partially twisted so that the intervention apparatus forms a solid rock-like ball, which can be used to protect the individual from harm, such as head-banging or against an object. Any pouch on the apparatus is covered by the hand grabbing the pouch to prevent damage from or to the zip. It can also be deployed for inhibiting property destruction; ‘ricochet’, which uses the intervention apparatus as a means of deflecting projectiles and/or shielding the user from for instance, spitting; and ‘roll’ in which the outer fabric cover is pulls inwardly using the user’s hands, with the inner sac rolling internally. This would be used if the individual were punching, spitting, kicking, head banging or otherwise attempting harm upon the user, and can also be used to protect or defend property, similar to the ‘rock’ technique. This poses a practical solution to prevent restrictive practice occurrence within health/social care settings and may lead to reductions in costs of provision.

Optionally, the inner sac may have a volume of at least 80% of the internal volume of the outer fabric cover, and more preferably of, close to, or exceeding 90% of the internal volume of the outer fabric cover.

The relative size of the inner sac with respect to the outer fabric cover has an effect on the rolling functionality thereof. By making the inner sac to be close to the size of the inner volume of the outer fabric cover, but not quite there, the inner sac has some room to roll, rotate, or otherwise move within the outer fabric cover, without leaving a large amount of void space in the outer fabric cover which might make the rolling action difficult to perform.

Preferably, the inner sac may be formed from a material having a lower coefficient of friction than that of the outer fabric cover.

It is advantageous for the outer fabric cover to be readily grippable by the user, which would typically be a high friction material, but to encourage the rolling action of the inner sac, it is preferred that the inner sac be as free to move as possible. Optionally, the outer fabric cover may further comprise an inner lining formed from a low-friction material.

The inner lining acts as a slide sheet, against which the rolling action of the inner sac can proceed without snagging.

The inner lining may be formed from nylon.

Nylon is a suitable low-friction material, that is, having a lower coefficient of friction than that of the material of the outer fabric cover.

In one preferred embodiment, the inner sac may be formed from polyester.

Polyester is a low-friction material which can be readily sewn to size, and therefore polyester is a highly suitable material to use for the inner sac. Polyester is strong, and highly durable, and laundry washable and machine dryable at high temperatures.

Optionally, the filler material may comprise a plurality of beads.

The intervention apparatus is designed to absorb blows received from an individual displaying challenging behaviour, and therefore a filler which is deformable under impact, such as beads, is an ideal bulking agent for the intervention apparatus.

In a preferable embodiment, the outer fabric cover may be formed from a fabric material having a textured surface.

A textured surface, such as a herringbone weave, on the outer fabric cover has been found to provide excellent grip properties, as well as producing a high tensile strength and resistance to tearing for the outer fabric cover, limiting the likelihood of the individual displaying challenging behaviour from breaking or damaging the intervention apparatus easily. A herringbone weave in particular has an aesthetically-pleasing texture visually.

Optionally the outer fabric cover may be formed from a fabric material comprising a blend of nylon, cotton, and modacrylic fibres.

Preferably, the fabric material may comprise less than or equal to 10% nylon, and at least 50% modacrylic. More preferably, the fabric material may comprise 10% nylon, 30% cotton, and 60% modacrylic.

Desirable properties for the fabric material are that it be laundry washable, making it suitable for use in general care settings, and in particular in care homes and hospitals, but also that it meets the necessary fire regulations. It has been determined that the fire retardancy of the fabric naturally meets British standards BS 5852: Clause 10:2006 (2011) to CRIB 5 standard, at least.

Optionally, the outer fabric cover may be formed from two cover portions which are sewn together.

A two-piece outer fabric cover, stitched in the form of a baseball or tennis ball, minimises the stitching required to assemble the outer fabric cover, which in turn, reduces the prospect of the seams splitting or tearing.

The outer fabric cover may further comprise an opening having a closeable fastener.

The provision of an opening in the outer fabric cover allows for it to be removed separate from the inner sac, allowing it to be machine-washed. This may be highly important for using the intervention apparatus in many care or medical settings. This may also allow for a luggage type lock to be connected, to prevent unauthorised access to the inner sac.

Preferably, the outer fabric cover may further comprise a fastener cover positioned to receive the closeable fastener in a closed condition, which may be formed as a fabric material pouch.

There are two functions to the fastener cover. Firstly, the fastener cannot snag on anything during use, either other objects which it might tear, or on people who may be injured. Secondly, the concealment of the fastener will generally be sufficient to prevent individuals displaying challenging behaviour from gaining access to the inner sac and thus damaging the intervention apparatus or ingesting the filler material.

Preferably, the inner sac may further comprise a funnel portion for receiving filler material therein.

It is common for bean bag cushions to need to be topped up with new beads as they are compressed once sat on, and the same principle applies to the intervention apparatus. A dedicated funnel provided with the inner sac, ideally integral thereto, will assist with filling of the inner sac with additional filler material. Ideally, the beads would be formed from an environmentally friendly non-plastics material, preferably a non-plastics, compostable, recyclable, and renewable material.

The intervention apparatus may preferably have a width of at least 50cm.

The dimensions of the intervention apparatus are such that a user can comfortably create the rolling effect, but still have adequate protection from projectiles or an individual displaying challenging behaviour. According to a fourth aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of using an intervention apparatus, the method comprising the steps of: a] a user grasping the outer fabric cover of the intervention apparatus with their left and right hands; b] the user drawing one of the left and right hands towards their body; c] the user releasing the outer fabric cover from the said one of the left and right hands; d] the user advancing the said one of the left and right hands away from their body and grasping the outer fabric cover therewith; e] the user drawing the other one of the left and right hands towards their body; f] the user releasing the outer fabric cover from the said other one of the left and right hands; g] the user advancing the said other one of the left and right hands away from their body and grasping the outer fabric cover therewith; and h] repeating steps b] to g] to create a rolling effect for the inner sac within the internal volume of the outer fabric cover to create a barrier between the user and an individual displaying challenging behaviour.

The rolling technique, by which the intervention apparatus is moved by a user allowing the inner sac to rotate, provides a defensive technique for a carer or other user for easy use in scenarios in which an individual is physically aggressive, disruptive, or destructive. The individual will find it difficult to disarm the user of the intervention apparatus, and if they are physically aggressive, or throw projectiles, they will quickly exhaust themselves upon the intervention apparatus, whilst maintaining the safety of the individual and allowing the carer to support the distressed behaviour. Both parties are unharmed, and negative behaviour patterns are not reinforced by the trauma of restraint on the individual displaying challenging behaviour.

The invention will now be more particularly described, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which:

Figure 1 shows a pictorial representation of one embodiment of an intervention apparatus in accordance with the second aspect of the invention;

Figure 2 shows a pictorial representation of an inner sac of the intervention apparatus of Figure 1 , with the outer fabric cover being shown in small dashed lines;

Figure 3 shows a pictorial representation of a filler material of the inner sac of the intervention apparatus of Figure 2, with the inner sac being shown in large dashed lines;

Figure 4 shows a pictorial representation of the intervention apparatus of Figure 1 , with the inner sac being shown in large dashed lines;

Figures 5A and 5B show pictorial representations of a user using the intervention apparatus of Figure 1 ; and Figure 6 shows a pictorial representation of a user using the intervention apparatus of Figure 1 in a defensive posture.

Referring to Figure 1 , there is illustrated an intervention apparatus, indicated globally at 10, and which has a structure similar to that of a tennis ball or baseball, having a largely spherical, spheroidal, or rounded cubic shape.

The intervention apparatus 10 is dimensioned to act as a protective barrier for a user handling an individual displaying challenging behaviour, typically having a width or diameter of at least 50cm. This allows the user to protect much of their torso and cover their head, when necessary, without obstructing their visual field overly.

The intervention apparatus 10 is similar in appearance, though not in internal construction, to a bean bag cushion.

The intervention apparatus 10 has an outer fabric cover 12, here formed in two cover portions 12a, 12b which are stitched together to form the distinctive baseball shape. It will be apparent that alternative stitching patterns are feasible. Preferably, the seams interconnecting the cover portions 12a, 12b are double stitched together, in order to provide improved strength to the construction of the intervention apparatus 10.

Access to an internal volume of the outer fabric cover 12 is provided through an opening 14, which is shown to be closed by a closeable fastener 16, typically a zip. A fastener cover 18 is provided, shown in the form of a pouch, which covers the closeable fastener 16, occluding it from view and access during use of the intervention apparatus 10.

The outer fabric cover 12 is formed from a fabric material having a herringbone weave, and comprising a blend of nylon, cotton, preferably organic cotton, and modacrylic fibres. The fabric material comprises less than 10% nylon, and at least 50% modacrylic, and in a specific embodiment the fabric material comprises 8% nylon, 32% cotton, and 60% modacrylic. In an alternative specific embodiment, the fabric material may comprise 7% nylon, 28% cotton, and 65% modacrylic; this produces a heavier fabric than the previous embodiment. In one embodiment, the warp yarn may comprise the nylon and cotton, and the weft yarn may comprise the modacrylic. Optional ranges of the fabric content may include 5% to 10% nylon, 25% to 35% cotton, and 55% to 70% modacrylic. The warp yarns are formed by blending and spinning the respective fibres. The use of different fibres in the warp and the weft provide the textile with unique characteristics, including appearance, strength, and flexibility. The fibres in the warp are blended, and two fibres (2-ply) are twisted together by spinners to make continuous yarn, thereby forming the warp yarn. The warp and weft yarns cannot be reversed without altering the characteristics of the product.

Yarn is described as an accumulation of one of more fibres that can either be spun or twisted together to create a single continuous strand. This can then be used in weaving, knitting, plaiting, or braiding to create a textile or patterned design of cloth.

In weaving the warp refers to the lengthwise threads held on a fabric loom. These threads are held stationary. The warps lies parallel with the selvage or edge of the fabric. The warp threads provide a structural frame for the weft. The weft refers to the horizontal yarn that is threaded over and under the warp threads. Together these produce a weave or web that creates a textile. The textile produced is known within industry as ‘loom state’. A ‘state’ prior to it being finished by a textile finisher.

The fabric material provides many benefits. It is inherently flame retardant and naturally meets British Standard BS5852:2006 to CRIB 5 standard, at least; the cotton and nylon combination forms a char when lit, which limits the spread of fire. No chemical back-coating is necessary, and thus the feel of the product is more natural. The material is washable to a commercial laundry standard, that is, does not have coatings which might be washed off or otherwise enter solution phase, has high tensile and tear strength, as well as having a natural handle or grip. However, the fabric does not have an elastic feel to it. The cotton component, along with the herringbone weave, assists in providing the expected handle of the intervention apparatus 10, whilst the nylon provides improved abrasion resistance. Other fabric weaves which are not herringbone can of course be provided, such as corduroy or denim.

Herringbone is known as an alternating twill weave, distinctive from a twill weave because of the following characteristics. The twill weave follows a direction that is either right-handed, tuning from bottom left to the top right or left-handed, running from the bottom right to top left to produce diagonal pattern endlessly in one direction. A Herringbone weave switches direction to create a distinctive v-shaped weaving pattern. It is distinguished from a twill plain chevron by the break at reversal which makes it resemble a broken zig- zag.

The herringbone weave is heavier than the standard twill weave making it well known for its qualities as a highly durable weaving pattern for clothes and furniture items that may be exposed to ongoing contact or harsh physical environmental conditions. In addition, herringbone has remained fashionable throughout time with the following additional characteristics. Herringbone has properties such as being able to camouflage stains, it shows few creases once washed and has an opaque shimmer to the design. The fabric material has a soft, natural, handle that allows the textile to perfectly drape over items such as furniture or make fire-retardant curtains. The composition of the textile makes it highly suitable for garment making or blanket making, in addition to upholstery contract textile applications. Once ironed the textile resumes back to its natural state. Its dimensional stability is excellent. Shrinkage does not occur once set to the appropriate heat temperature during the finishing process. It irons back to finished status with an average domestic iron.

The approach to the fabric was to determine which fibres might be suitable for fire retardant products without the need for chemical treatment. This was determined to include modacrylic and cotton, and to exclude otherwise high-performance fire-retardant yarns which are coated. The weaving of the fabric needed to then be made to achieve charring, rather than hole formation under flame testing. The provision of the spun nylon and cotton in a warp yarn with the modacrylic in the weft yarn was found to have the best properties here. The herringbone weave also served to improve the charring of the fibres. Collectively, these three features combine to form the highest possible fire safety rating, though high fire safety ratings can be achieved without the herringbone weave.

The textile has passed BS 5852: Clause 10:2006 (2011) - Source 5 (CRIB 5 Test) and BS 5852:Clause 11 :2006 (2011) - Source 7 (Crib 7 Test). It has also passed BS 5867: 2008 Specification for Fabrics for Curtains, Drapes, and Window Blinds, Part 2: Flammability Requirements using BS EN ISO 15025:2002, as well as the FAR/JAR Part 25:App. F Part 1 (Vertical Test) I EASA CS.25.853 test. This means that no external fire-retardant coatings or chemical applications need to be applied during the textile finishing process.

The textile self-extinguished the flame between 560 to 704 seconds. The time of smoke extinction ranged from 866 to 1024 seconds. The spread of the flame remained minimal failing to set alight even one third of the textile sample tested. This test result has vast implications for interrupting the chain of events that allow cladding on buildings to set on fire e.g., curtains setting on fire, which in turn melt PVC windows which in turn set building cladding on fire. People could potentially escape a burning fire by using a fire cloak made out of the textile to protect their face, hair and shoes during the early phase of a fire. Furthermore, if the textile was soaked in water (in a controlled setting) such as an aeroplane that had sprinklers, it is highly unlikely that the textile would be able to set on fire. Therefore, fumes emitted by a burning textile would not have to be mitigated. Remarkably the textile did not drip or melt at the highest temperatures of controlled testing. It also makes the fabric potentially suitable for attractive woven Fire Blankets. The textile has also passed the Testing of Compartment Interior Materials to FAR/JAR Part 25:App. F Part 1 (Vertical Test) I EASA CS.25.853 test, and is found to be compliant. This means that the fabric is suitable for use as aviation upholstery.

The fabric appearance is designed to look distinct from medicalised products, with the ability to fit in to a wide variety of contexts, such as domestic, commercial, or clinical settings.

It will be apparent that the fabric material may have many different uses in different fabric-based products, not least in bean bag products, due to the unexpected properties of the fabric material which have been specifically designed for this purpose.

The fabric material is preferably single layered, formed only from the fabric material once the warp and weft fibres have been formed into the fabric material, as herebefore described, rather than several layers of different material connected together.

In the fabric material, there is preferably no carbon fibres, mercerized wool, acrylic cotton, chitin fibre, cashmere, aramid fibres which cannot be dyed, or viscose fibres. The modacrylic fibres are preferably not produced with chloride.

There are preferably no treated fire-retardant fibres in the fabric material, such as modacrylic modified with antimony, fire-retardant acrylic fibres, or para-aramid fibres.

The present fabric is completely dyeable, since all of the constituent fibres are dyeable.

Figure 2 shows inside the intervention apparatus 10, with the outer fabric cover 12 being shown in small dashed lines. There is an inner sac 20 inside the internal volume of the outer fabric cover 12, which is preferably formed from a low-friction fabric material. The inner sac 20 is most preferably formed from a polyester material, or a polyester-based material, since this reduces the risk of snagging on the internal seams of the outer fabric cover 12. Alternatively, the inner sac 20 may be formed from nylon, or a blend of nylon and polyester. In a preferred embodiment, there is a low-friction inner lining 21 provided on the inside of the outer fabric cover 12, thereby providing a surface against which the inner sac 20 can slide. This inner lining 21 may be referred to as a slide sheet, and is preferably formed from nylon or a similar low-friction material. Equally, the inner lining could be formed from polyester, or a blend of nylon and polyester. Preferably, the inner lining 21 is quilted to the outer fabric cover 12 to provide an aesthetically pleasing finish, whilst also reducing the likelihood of snagging.

The inner sac 20 is preferably dimensioned to have a volume of at least 80% of the internal volume of the outer fabric cover 12, and more preferably to have a volume of approximately 90% of the internal volume of the outer fabric cover 12. The seams of the inner sac 20, where applicable, are sewn onto the interior of the inner sac 20, thereby reducing the risk of snagging on the outer fabric cover 12 further.

The inner sac 20 is untethered to the outer fabric cover 12. This permits the rolling action within the internal volume to occur.

The relationship between the inner sac 20 and the inner lining 21 is chosen such that rolling is not inhibited, but that the two do not necessarily slide relative to one another if the intervention apparatus 10 is used as a traditional bean bag product. The polyester of the inner sac 20 has a sheen quality which slides relative to the nylon of the inner lining 21 when rotating, but does not slide when sat on.

The fabric tested for the outer fabric cover 12 may have a fabric weight of approximately 295 gsm, and could anywhere between 250 and 450 gsm which meets the requirements of British Standard 2543:2004 for upholstery fabrics, making it suitable for severe contract use in respect of abrasion resistance, pilling, and tear strength. The polyester tested for the inner sac 20 has a fabric weight of 125 gsm. The nylon of the inner lining 21 may have a fabric weight of 57 gsm.

Figure 3 shows the content of the inner sac 20, itself shown in large dashed lines, which comprises filler material 22. The filler material 22 here comprises a plurality of rounded filling beads, such as polystyrene or plant-based beads, akin to those found in traditional bean bag products. Said filler material 22 is designed to absorb and dissipate kinetic impact, being at least in part deformable or displaceable, and thus forms the core defence of the intervention apparatus 10. It will be apparent that alternative filler materials could be considered, such as foam or cushion padding, though the filling beads may improve the rolling function of the intervention apparatus 10, as they have their own separate momentum.

Figure 4 shows the intervention apparatus 10 being topped up with filler material 22. A funnel portion 24, formed as a chute sewn into the inner sac 20, is provided into which filling beads can be poured, to enter into an internal space of the inner sac 20. The funnel portion 24 can then be folded into the internal space, and the inner sac 20 sealed, typically via a zip fastener or similar. The funnel portion 24 is dimensioned to be extendable through the opening 14 of the outer fabric cover 12.

Figures 5A and 5B show a typical use case of the intervention apparatus 10, indicating the rolling action which can be performed as a defensive or containment manoeuvre for the user 26.

The user 26 grasps the outer fabric cover 12 of the intervention apparatus 14 with their left and right hands 28a, 28b, as per Figure 5A, and then draws one of the left and right hands towards their body 30. This drags the outer fabric cover 12 towards the body 30; however, the free movement of the inner sac 20 should prevent it from also being drawn towards the body 30, provided the correct technique is used. This dragging process is illustrated in Figure 5B.

The user 26 releases the outer fabric cover from the said one of the left and right hands 28a, and subsequently the user advances the said one of the left and right hands 28a away from their body 30 and grasps the outer fabric cover 12 therewith. The user 26 then draws the other one of the left and right hands 28b towards their body 30, releasing the outer fabric cover 12 from the said other one of the left and right hands 28b once complete. The user 26 can then advance the said other one of the left and right hands 28b away from their body 30 and grasp the outer fabric cover 12 therewith. These steps are repeated to create a rolling effect for the inner sac 20 within the internal volume of the outer fabric cover 12 to create a barrier between the user 26 and an individual displaying challenging behaviour.

A single user 26 using one intervention apparatus 10 is able to defend themselves against any assault by an individual displaying challenging behaviour, and eventually tire the individual displaying challenging behaviour. Three users 26, for example, each having intervention apparatuses 10 of their own, can easily de-escalate any situation in a safe manner until the individual becomes calm and the challenging behaviour stops. This allows for de-escalation of incidents without needing to physically hold down the individual until they stop resisting or become injured.

It is noted, however, that the size of the intervention apparatus 10 may allow it to act as a seat, or as a physical barrier between the user and an individual to create space for the user to perform acts without interruption, such as tying shoelaces, or buckling a seatbelt. Generally, neurotypical individuals will be able to anticipate the next action of individuals having intellectual and developmental disabilities, given that their IQ is often less than 70, and anticipation of their likely actions will be straightforward.

Another use of the intervention apparatus 10 is shown in Figure 6, in which the user 26 uses the intervention apparatus 10 as a shield for themselves. This can be used to create a static barrier using the intervention apparatus 10, or can be used reactively to deflect projectiles launched towards the user 26. The intervention apparatus 10 can also be used to protect the individual displaying challenging behaviour from other obstacles, such as sharp edges on furniture, but intervening between the individual and the obstacle with the intervention apparatus 10.

It is therefore possible to provide an intervention apparatus which is suitable for Inhibiting challenging behaviour in individuals, particularly having intellectual and developmental disabilities. This can be achieved by the use of a rolling action for the intervention apparatus, which makes it difficult for another individual to harm or disarm the user. This can prevent an incident from occurring, allow for intervention during an incident is in progress, thereby potentially preventing higher severity incidents from ever occurring, and can also reduce the duration of the incident if appropriate de-escalation techniques are used.

The words ‘comprises/comprising’ and the words ‘having/including’ when used herein with reference to the present invention are used to specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps, or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, components, or groups thereof. It is appreciated that certain features of the invention, which are, for clarity, described in the context of separate embodiments, may also be provided in combination in a single embodiment. Conversely, various features of the invention which are, for brevity, described in the context of a single embodiment, may also be provided separately or in any suitable sub-combination.

The embodiments described above are provided by way of examples only, and various other modifications will be apparent to persons skilled in the field without departing from the scope of the invention as defined herein.