Should hospital security staff do de-escalation training?

Yes. WA’s 2026 Restrictive Practices Standard requires mental health services to give clinical and security staff the same prevention and de-escalation training, and says contracted security staff must meet the same requirement as internal security staff.

Can security officers restrain mental health patients?

In WA authorised mental health services, security staff cannot implement restraint or seclusion themselves. A clinician must authorise it under the Mental Health Act, and security may then be asked to assist. Rules differ by state and setting, so check your own legislation and policy.

Is more security or more training better for preventing violence?

They do different jobs. Physical security measures such as alarms, access control and security staff are stronger controls than training alone, while de-escalation reduces how often situations escalate in the first place. WHS law expects a combination.

Security vs de-escalation training in hospitals: answering the objection

Since 2025, every state has put new money into hospital safety, and most of it has gone to security: more officers, body-worn cameras, duress alarms, CCTV. That is welcome, and your business case shouldn’t argue against it. It should show where de-escalation fits alongside it.

What’s behind the objection?

Security is visible, quick to fund and easy to explain after a serious incident. Staff ask for it, unions campaign for it, and executives can point to it. The risk is treating it as the whole answer, when most aggression starts well before security is called, and much of the injury happens in what follows.

The demand on security shows how often that happens. Code Black calls, the emergency response to a threat of violence, reached 9,213 in SA hospitals in the first half of 2026 alone (Glam Adelaide). Each one is a situation that has already escalated. De-escalation works earlier, before the call is made.

Why aren’t security and de-escalation the same thing?

They do different jobs at different points in an incident.

What security and de-escalation each contribute
	Security	De-escalation and prevention
When it acts	Once an incident is under way, or to deter one	Before and during escalation: noticing distress, defusing flashpoints
Who leads	Security officers, at a clinician’s request	Every clinician on the ward, every shift
What it reduces	Harm once an incident happens; some deterrence	How often situations escalate to the point of needing security or restraint
The risk	More physical intervention, and restraint is where staff get hurt	Training on its own isn’t enough; it needs a ward-level model and measurement

Restraint is the most common activity when serious staff injuries happen in mental health services: 27% in UK NHS trusts (Renwick et al. 2016). A response that relies on physical intervention carries that risk for security officers and nurses alike.

Clinicians lead, and security officers need the skills too. In WA authorised mental health services, security staff cannot implement restraint or seclusion themselves: a clinician authorises it, and security may be asked to assist. The same Standard requires clinical and security staff to have the same prevention and de-escalation training, and contracted security staff to meet the same requirement as internal staff (WA Chief Psychiatrist, 2026, clauses A2.3 and A3.1).

What are Australian services actually doing?

Pairing security with training and clinical support, not choosing between them.

Tasmania: the Health Minister told Budget Estimates in November 2025 that the immediate priorities include a new internal security model and, alongside it, a new accredited training model for occupational violence prevention with a statewide training delivery structure (Estimates transcript).
NSW: after three nurses were stabbed at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in 2019, the remedy SafeWork NSW accepted included a 24/7 behavioural support team and specialist training, not security alone (SafeWork NSW).
WA: Royal Perth’s Behaviour Support Team saw 299 patients in its first eight weeks, and about 40% of its work is coaching staff (EMHS).

How do you answer it?

What you can say“Security is part of the answer, and we support it. This makes it work better: fewer situations reach the point of calling security, and when they do, clinicians and security officers respond the same way.”

What to avoidSetting training against security, or implying security staff make things worse. Make security a partner in the business case, and include security officers in the training.

Our security and clinical program trains the two groups together.

Other objections you might hear

“There’s no budget for it this year” You are already paying for violence in claims and backfill. The question is where the money comes from, not whether it exists. “Where’s the evidence it works? What’s the ROI” Strong in mental health, promising in emergency departments, unproven on general wards, and no one has a proven ROI. Say so, then offer to measure it locally. “We already do mandatory training” Completion isn’t competence. Regulators now say training on its own isn’t enough, and WA’s new Standard sets what the training must contain. “We can’t release staff for training” Set the hours of training against the hours violence already takes: restraint episodes, sick leave and months of backfill. “Violence just comes with the job here” Health policy and WHS law say it doesn’t. Treating violence as normal is why most of it goes unreported.

All six on one page: answering objections to violence prevention training. To build the case from the start, begin with Part 1, the values case, or go straight to Part 2, the financial case.

How to answer “More security is the answer”