Iowa also requires a “declaration” of the administered risk that tenants sign, in which they recognize “the shared responsibility to identify and respond to the needs and process of managing risks and maintaining tenant autonomy when tenant decision-making can lead to poor outcomes for the tenant or others.” Although the rules of these four states do not set the content or format of a risk agreement, they stipulate that risk management must be part of the service planning process in assisted housing. The first 12 of these organisations have been a complementary position to the shared responsibility agreement, including the emphasis on the process as an instrument of communication, specifying that RNAs enable residents to make decisions (ALW, 2003: 153) by providing a mechanism for assisted life providers to preserve the values of independence, autonomy and choice when the wishes and preferences of the resident must be placed on the same level as normally acceptable risks (ALW , 2003: 154). These supporters also provided a statement that, in such agreements, suppliers should not absolve themselves of liability for negligence (p.153). These organizations stated that the shared responsibility agreement process was ultimately simply a systematized method of responding to or finding acceptable alternatives to individual residency choices, and that the adequacy of its use depends on the unique facts and circumstances that affect each resident (ALW, 2003: 153). The medication schemes managed by the Community for assisted housing must be reviewed quarterly by a registered pharmacist and any changes to the condition also warrant a review. This service must also be offered to all residents who administer medication themselves. All negative audit results must be forwarded to the health care provider and the audit should cover the following: in Wisconsin, some RNAs have not determined what the institution would not do to address the risk. For example, if a diabetic diet was not on a diabetic diet, the NRA explained that the facility could not monitor food intake 24 hours a day, prevent purchases in the gift shop of the establishment and remove candy from the occupant`s apartment. In another NRA, which was concerned about the facility`s concern about a resident who was walking unsupervised for a long time, the NRA stated that the facility would encourage the resident to ask another resident to go out with her; she will unsubscribe when she leaves the building; so that she does not go beyond where she can see the building; and that 24 hours of monitoring of the residence and accompaniment for outdoor hikes are not available. Under Wisconsin rules, “it is not in a position to make care decisions” that individuals are unable to understand their own needs for support, personal care or care; Choose the services they wish to receive, if any, to meet these needs; and understand the outcome that could result from this election. The regulations make it clear that the term “incapable” refers to decision-making capacity and not to the content or outcome of the decision. 304 South Summit Street, PO Box 1122, Arkansas City, KS 67005 (620) 442-0268 It is not clear what kind of actual facts would require the use of a shared responsibility agreement, particularly given the availability and general acceptance of the care planning process.
While shared responsibility agreements are intended to promote residents` choice, they do reduce residents` choice, as evidenced by the fact that they must be used if the resident does not meet the objectives and outcomes set out in the service plan or the policies and procedures of the ARL, or if there is a deviation from an accepted standard or a lack of consensus on an approach. Residents.