Managing Risk in Dementia Services Without Over-Restricting People

Risk in dementia care is often treated as a problem to remove rather than something to manage proportionately. As dementia progresses, risk profiles change quickly: mobility, judgement, continence, medication safety and vulnerability to exploitation can all shift within weeks. High-quality services respond through structured risk enablement, clear review mechanisms, and staff confidence to make consistent decisions.

This article sits within Dementia – Quality, Safety & Governance and connects directly to Dementia – Service Models & Care Pathways, because different models (homecare, residential, supported living) require different controls, escalation routes and monitoring intensity.

Why dementia risk management fails in practice

Most failures happen for predictable operational reasons:

• Risk assessments are generic and not linked to actual daily routines.
• Controls are put in place but not reviewed when circumstances change.
• Staff apply different standards across shifts.
• Fear of criticism pushes services toward blanket restriction.

Proportionate risk management requires governance: consistent thresholds, decision logs, and evidence that restrictions (where necessary) are the minimum required and actively reviewed.

Commissioner expectation: proportionate controls and defensible decision-making

Commissioner expectation: commissioners expect dementia providers to show that risk is managed through:

• Clear risk stratification (what is low, medium, high risk and why).
• Documented decisions tied to the person’s outcomes and preferences.
• Evidence of review (especially after incidents, hospital admissions or safeguarding).

Commissioners may specifically test how a service avoids avoidable admissions, unmanaged falls, and unplanned package breakdown.

Regulator / Inspector expectation: least restrictive practice and safety

Regulator / Inspector expectation (CQC): inspectors look for safe care that still respects autonomy. In dementia services, this is often tested through:

• How “wandering” or leaving is managed without defaulting to restriction.
• How falls risks are mitigated without unnecessary loss of independence.
• How medicines are managed safely when memory and capacity reduce.
• Whether staff can explain the rationale for controls and show review.

Risk categories that require active management in dementia

Most dementia providers need clear operational guidance across at least four recurring risks:

• Mobility and falls: balance, transfers, footwear, continence-related rushing, night disorientation.
• Leaving / getting lost: exit-seeking, routines, triggers, environmental factors, community safety.
• Medication safety: missed doses, double dosing, refusal, delegation in home settings.
• Self-neglect and vulnerability: nutrition, hydration, hygiene, financial exploitation, doorstep scams.

What matters is not listing risks but evidencing how they are monitored and responded to in the real delivery model.

Operational Example 1: Supported living – managing leaving risk without “locking down”

Context: A person with dementia in supported living began leaving the building at night and becoming disoriented.

Support approach: The provider used a stepped approach before considering restrictive measures.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

• Staff recorded patterns: time, mood, cues (anxiety, restlessness), and what the person appeared to be seeking.
• Environmental changes were introduced first: clearer signage, night lighting, visual prompts, and a reassurance routine before bedtime.
• A “night check” schedule was adjusted around identified high-risk times rather than blanket hourly checks.

How effectiveness is evidenced: Incident frequency reduced and records showed a clear decision trail: what was tried, what worked, and why more restrictive options were not required.

Operational Example 2: Homecare – medicines risk with fluctuating capacity

Context: A person receiving homecare began missing doses and occasionally taking double doses.

Support approach: The provider strengthened medicines support using delegated tasks and clear thresholds for escalation.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

• Staff checked and recorded capacity for medicines decision-making at each visit (brief prompts rather than long narrative).
• Blister packs and a controlled prompting routine were implemented, with clear guidance on when staff could prompt versus when administration support was required.
• Escalation routes were set: when to contact family, GP, pharmacy, or request a review for increased support.

How effectiveness is evidenced: MAR records and notes showed reduced errors, a clear review timeline, and evidence that changes were agreed and monitored rather than informally adopted.

Operational Example 3: Residential care – falls reduction without removing independence

Context: A resident with dementia experienced repeated falls linked to rushing to the toilet and night disorientation.

Support approach: The service implemented targeted risk reduction while protecting independence.

Day-to-day delivery detail:

• Night-time lighting and clear route marking were introduced.
• Staff proactively supported continence at identified high-risk times.
• Footwear checks and transfer prompts were added to routines without “hovering” or over-supervising.

How effectiveness is evidenced: Falls reduced, and audits showed that the approach was reviewed and adjusted rather than becoming a fixed restriction.

Governance: the practical systems that keep risk management proportionate

To avoid drift into over-restriction (or unmanaged risk), dementia providers need governance mechanisms that operate weekly, not annually:

• Risk review triggers: clear triggers for review (falls, refusal of care, missing person incidents, safeguarding, hospital admission).
• Decision logs: short records of why a control was chosen, what alternatives were considered, and when it will be reviewed.
• Staff consistency tools: shift handover prompts focusing on top risks and current approaches.
• Audit sampling: small samples checking whether records match practice (especially around restrictive practice).

How to evidence “least restrictive practice” in dementia care

In practice, evidence of least restrictive practice usually looks like:

• Clear description of the specific risk and who is at risk (not generic “wanderer” labels).
• Evidence that proactive and environmental options were tried first.
• Time limits and review dates for any restrictive measure.
• Records showing the person’s preferences, distress triggers, and wellbeing impact considered alongside safety.

This is not a paperwork exercise: it is what protects providers when risk decisions are questioned and, more importantly, what protects people from unnecessary loss of autonomy.

---