VS Consulting (TAS) Pty Ltd provides integrated behaviour and continence services (IBCS)
�� www.vsctas.com.au
Toileting and restrictive practices: the quiet intersection behaviour support practitioners must not
ignore
When people think about restrictive practices, they often imagine physical restraint or locked doors.
Toileting rarely comes to mind. Yet in behaviour support practice, some of the most common
restrictive practices occur around something as ordinary as going to the toilet.
Toileting routines can become restrictive when control shifts from the person to the system around
them.
Examples include:
scheduled toileting that ignores a person’s body signals
staff withholding access to the bathroom until a program step is completed
locking bathrooms or requiring permission to access the toilet
restricting fluids to manage incontinence
forcing toileting routines that create distress or humiliation
using continence products purely for staff convenience rather than clinical need
These practices may not look restrictive on paper, but they limit autonomy over a fundamental human
function.
For many people with disability, toileting is deeply connected to regulation, dignity, trauma history, and
interoception. When a person cannot access the toilet when their body needs it, anxiety increases.
Anxiety escalates behaviour. Staff may then respond to the behaviour rather than the unmet bodily
need that caused it.
This is where behaviour support and continence practice intersect.
A behaviour support practitioner should always ask several clinical questions:
is the person able to recognise internal body signals are sensory sensitivities affecting toileting environments
is constipation or continence difficulty contributing to agitation
are staff routines prioritising efficiency over autonomy
The goal is not simply toileting compliance. The goal is safe, dignified access to bodily autonomy.
Under the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission framework, any practice that restricts a person’s
freedom of movement or access to basic needs can constitute a restrictive practice. Toileting
restrictions can therefore sit within environmental restraint if access to the toilet is limited or
controlled.
When behaviour support practitioners and support teams examine toileting through a rights-based
lens, several things change. Environments are adapted. Communication supports are introduced.
Staff routines become flexible. Clinical continence assessments are prioritised.
The result is often simple but powerful: reduced anxiety, fewer behaviours of concern, and greater
dignity for the person.
Continence is not just about bladder or bowel control.
It is about autonomy, safety, and human rights.
And behaviour support must treat it that way.