What criteria suggests there must be no other practical way to prevent harm?

The concept related to the criteria suggesting that there must be no other practical way to prevent harm is rooted in the necessity for physical intervention, which is described as a situation where physical management is needed. When the circumstances escalate to a point where there is an imminent risk of harm to an individual or others, and all other preventive measures have been exhausted or are deemed ineffective, physical intervention becomes necessary.

Physical management necessity is invoked in scenarios like behavioral crises where individuals may pose a threat to themselves or others, and where safety cannot be ensured through verbal de-escalation or other non-contact methods. This criterion emphasizes a framework where safety is the highest priority, and physical management, though not the first choice, becomes a last resort due to the urgency of the situation. Thus, it ensures that actions taken are justified and appropriate under the circumstances.

In contrast, signs of aggression can signal a potentially volatile situation, but they do not themselves dictate the need for physical management. Imminent threat assessment focuses on evaluating true threats rather than confirming that physical intervention is the last resort. The high-stress environment context suggests increased tension but does not necessarily indicate that physical management is the only viable option left. Each of these criteria serves a different purpose in evaluating risk and response,