Week Two, Twelve-Minute Episodes

It is consistent with an extinction burst, and the RBT cannot be sure of that alone. The signature is there: episodes got longer (3–5 min to 12–14 min), more intense, and aggression emerged where it previously wasn't reported. Bursts are expected, transient, and are not a reason to abandon a plan by themselves.

But 'it's a burst' is a hypothesis, and safety outranks the hypothesis. In the next ten minutes:

1. Follow the plan's safety and termination criteria if it has them - most well-written extinction plans specify when staff discontinue a demand.
2. If there's injury risk, stop the demand and create distance. A scratched, bleeding staff member and a 12-year-old in a 14-minute escalation is a safety event, not a data point. Ending the demand for safety is not the same as delivering a break contingent on screaming - do it neutrally, without attention or tangibles.
3. Do not invent a new procedure in the hallway. No reversal, no time-out, no 'let's try ignoring him.'
4. Get the supervisor on the phone - call the on-call number, leave a voicemail, and document the time.
5. Document duration, what preceded, what was done, injury, notifications.

If the pattern continues past the expected burst window, that is a plan-review decision for the BCBA, not the RBT's call.

The risk is straightforward: giving the break while Devon is screaming delivers escape for screaming, which negatively reinforces the exact escalation the plan is trying to extinguish. It also teaches the intensity threshold - 12 minutes is what it takes. And it undermines the FCT response: if screaming works faster than signing 'break,' the mand will be weak.

A defensible alternative keeps safety and integrity aligned:

• Prompt the mand. Get close, give the least intrusive prompt for 'break' (' Devon, say break'), and honor the break the moment he emits it - even mid-episode. That reinforces the replacement behavior without reinforcing screaming.
• Reduce the demand if needed for safety, delivered neutrally and without the 'break' label attached to problem behavior.
• Consider whether the demand is at instructional level. If the math task is far above Devon's skills, escape is a reasonable response and the plan needs adjusting - a BCBA question.
• Record how long each episode ran and whether a break was delivered and why. The integrity deviation is data, not a shameful secret.

What the RBT should not do is argue with the aide in front of Devon or make a unilateral schedule change.

Include, objectively:

• Date, times, setting, who was present.
• Number of episodes, duration of each (start/stop times), and the antecedent for each in observable terms.
• The scratch: what happened, when, visible injury, first aid given, whether the staff member sought care.
• That a break was delivered, at what point, and the reason (safety), plus the mand-prompt attempts and Devon's responses.
• Notifications: supervisor called at what time with no answer, message left; parent/guardian notified per agency protocol; incident report filed.
• Whether the written plan was followed as specified - honestly.

Leave out:

• Editorializing or diagnosis-flavored language: 'extinction failed,' 'he was manipulating,' 'severe autism,' 'out of control.'
• Numbers you did not actually count. If you didn't time an episode, say 'approximately' and say why.
• Blame of the aide, and any speculation about what caused the behavior.

Also: file the note within the agency's deadline. Late notes are more likely to be reconstructed from memory and less likely to be accurate, and this session involves an injury - an incident report and a session note that don't contradict each other matter.