Which of the following is considered an inappropriate method for controlling wandering?

Which of the following is considered an inappropriate method for controlling wandering?

• A. Restricting the wanderer to bed with physical restraints
• B. Locked Alzheimer wards with a door requiring a passcode to exit
• C. Bracelet work by the resident that triggers a door lock as the resident approaches
• D. Mesh Velcro barriers on other residents' doors

Answer: (A)

Restricting the wanderer to bed with physical restraints is considered an inappropriate method for controlling wandering due to ethical, legal, and health-related reasons. The use of physical restraints can lead to a range of negative consequences for individuals, including increased agitation, physical injury, loss of dignity, and a decline in overall health. Moreover, it may violate patients' rights and can be viewed as a form of abuse if used without thorough justification or consideration of less restrictive alternatives. In contrast, other methods mentioned, such as secured environments that require a passcode for entry or exit, allow for safety while respecting residents’ autonomy. These approaches aim to create a secure environment tailored to those living with cognitive impairments, like Alzheimer’s, while minimizing the risk of harm associated with unrestricted wandering. Similarly, technology like bracelet-triggered locks provides a means of supervision without compromising individual freedoms. Mesh Velcro barriers on other residents' doors also serve as a non-restrictive measure that helps guide wandering without confining individuals to a harmful extent.

Restricting the wanderer to bed with physical restraints is considered an inappropriate method for controlling wandering due to ethical, legal, and health-related reasons. The use of physical restraints can lead to a range of negative consequences for individuals, including increased agitation, physical injury, loss of dignity, and a decline in overall health. Moreover, it may violate patients' rights and can be viewed as a form of abuse if used without thorough justification or consideration of less restrictive alternatives.

In contrast, other methods mentioned, such as secured environments that require a passcode for entry or exit, allow for safety while respecting residents’ autonomy. These approaches aim to create a secure environment tailored to those living with cognitive impairments, like Alzheimer’s, while minimizing the risk of harm associated with unrestricted wandering. Similarly, technology like bracelet-triggered locks provides a means of supervision without compromising individual freedoms. Mesh Velcro barriers on other residents' doors also serve as a non-restrictive measure that helps guide wandering without confining individuals to a harmful extent.