Anonymous wrote:Aggression, agitation, violence that were not previously there are SYMPTOMS of an illness or SIDE EFFECTS of a medication.
The home should not have called to have him picked up. He should have been taken to the ER for stabilization and family called.
I am sorry this happened.
Geriatric medical care is terrible most places.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?
I see what you’re trying to do, but where are people like him supposed to go? Take him home, wait until he wanders off because it’s impossible to monitor someone by yourself 24/7, and he does cold and shirtless in a ditch? He is ill. He is not a “violent person”. He should never have been able to wander in the middle of the night unsupervised if the appropriate safety measures were in place, but this facility refused to do anything extra and was dragging their feet on getting him moved somewhere more suitable.
He sent someone to the emergency room with his violence. He is, by definition, a violent person.
He’s violet due to the dementia which can be common
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?
I see what you’re trying to do, but where are people like him supposed to go? Take him home, wait until he wanders off because it’s impossible to monitor someone by yourself 24/7, and he does cold and shirtless in a ditch? He is ill. He is not a “violent person”. He should never have been able to wander in the middle of the night unsupervised if the appropriate safety measures were in place, but this facility refused to do anything extra and was dragging their feet on getting him moved somewhere more suitable.
DP. Unless you are paying for 1:1 care or restraints have been approved, there is no way to have eyes on him all the time. And he was not permitted to wander. Staff found him and attempted to get him where he belonged.
Facilities cannot magically make placements appear. If something was available and they didn’t move him, that would be a different story but that’s isn’t what OP conveyed.
And whether he is ill or not, he is violent just like people who have a mental illness are sometimes violent. And, by entering the rooms of vulnerable people, he is a danger to others. As I said upthread, what happens to violent people is commitment to psych facilities, including violent people with dementia.
Depending on the state they do not allow restraints.
Which states don't allow restraints for a violent individual in a hospital? I'm familiar with ones who have pretty strict regulations, but I wasn't aware of any states where it wasn't allowed at all.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?
I see what you’re trying to do, but where are people like him supposed to go? Take him home, wait until he wanders off because it’s impossible to monitor someone by yourself 24/7, and he does cold and shirtless in a ditch? He is ill. He is not a “violent person”. He should never have been able to wander in the middle of the night unsupervised if the appropriate safety measures were in place, but this facility refused to do anything extra and was dragging their feet on getting him moved somewhere more suitable.
DP. Unless you are paying for 1:1 care or restraints have been approved, there is no way to have eyes on him all the time. And he was not permitted to wander. Staff found him and attempted to get him where he belonged.
Facilities cannot magically make placements appear. If something was available and they didn’t move him, that would be a different story but that’s isn’t what OP conveyed.
And whether he is ill or not, he is violent just like people who have a mental illness are sometimes violent. And, by entering the rooms of vulnerable people, he is a danger to others. As I said upthread, what happens to violent people is commitment to psych facilities, including violent people with dementia.
Depending on the state they do not allow restraints.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?
I see what you’re trying to do, but where are people like him supposed to go? Take him home, wait until he wanders off because it’s impossible to monitor someone by yourself 24/7, and he does cold and shirtless in a ditch? He is ill. He is not a “violent person”. He should never have been able to wander in the middle of the night unsupervised if the appropriate safety measures were in place, but this facility refused to do anything extra and was dragging their feet on getting him moved somewhere more suitable.
DP. Unless you are paying for 1:1 care or restraints have been approved, there is no way to have eyes on him all the time. And he was not permitted to wander. Staff found him and attempted to get him where he belonged.
Facilities cannot magically make placements appear. If something was available and they didn’t move him, that would be a different story but that’s isn’t what OP conveyed.
And whether he is ill or not, he is violent just like people who have a mental illness are sometimes violent. And, by entering the rooms of vulnerable people, he is a danger to others. As I said upthread, what happens to violent people is commitment to psych facilities, including violent people with dementia.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?
I see what you’re trying to do, but where are people like him supposed to go? Take him home, wait until he wanders off because it’s impossible to monitor someone by yourself 24/7, and he does cold and shirtless in a ditch? He is ill. He is not a “violent person”. He should never have been able to wander in the middle of the night unsupervised if the appropriate safety measures were in place, but this facility refused to do anything extra and was dragging their feet on getting him moved somewhere more suitable.
He sent someone to the emergency room with his violence. He is, by definition, a violent person.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?
I see what you’re trying to do, but where are people like him supposed to go? Take him home, wait until he wanders off because it’s impossible to monitor someone by yourself 24/7, and he does cold and shirtless in a ditch? He is ill. He is not a “violent person”. He should never have been able to wander in the middle of the night unsupervised if the appropriate safety measures were in place, but this facility refused to do anything extra and was dragging their feet on getting him moved somewhere more suitable.
Anonymous wrote:The mistake was actually picking him up from the nursing home. If you had refused to pick him up they would have found another place.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?
I see what you’re trying to do, but where are people like him supposed to go? Take him home, wait until he wanders off because it’s impossible to monitor someone by yourself 24/7, and he does cold and shirtless in a ditch? He is ill. He is not a “violent person”. He should never have been able to wander in the middle of the night unsupervised if the appropriate safety measures were in place, but this facility refused to do anything extra and was dragging their feet on getting him moved somewhere more suitable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A couple of things. It isn’t a dump if the family picked him up.
The family needs to cast a wider net when looking for a facility. It is going to be a nightmare to find a facility to take him now that he has a record of going into vulnerable people’s rooms in an agitated state during the night and add to that the violence toward staff with two not being able to contain him. This will all be disclosed to anywhere you consider.
An ER is an option but it’s not the panacea that PP makes it sound. A placement isn’t going to magically appear because he’s in the ER. If they have to keep him, the care will suck. He won’t get a hospital room - he’ll be stick in an ER bed, which depending on the facility is just a bed behind a curtain with irregular meals and no routine. His confusion will go off the wall and if he gets agitated he could be restrained and medicated with heavy duty psych meds and could end up involuntarily committed in a psych placement. Plus someone has to pay for that so if there is money it might be better spent in other ways.
An attorney and adult protective services are good resources.
Last thing. You are rather dismissive of the staffs’ injuries. Your FIL sent a staff member to the ER. That’s serious and it’s pretty shocking that your reaction doesn’t recognize that he hurt someone and those injuries could have long term affects.
Apologies if it seemed that way—just providing context in case the nursing home could have been overstating the seriousness of the situation to bully my sibling-in-law.
Anonymous wrote:What meds is he on? He might need different ones
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The nursing home did the right thing as it has a duty to protect its patients/residents and workers from violence.
No they didn't. That was just the easiest thing for them. They needed to find an alternative placement. He can't be home. That's not safe for him or his family.
Imagine your loved one in a nursing home, and a violent person wanders into your loved one's room, in the middle of the night. When staff tries to protect your loved one by removing the violent man, he assaults them, sending one to the ER.
Would you be ok with this violent person remaining in the same facility as your loved one?