The institution must receive a signed confirmation that the individual has received the information. The explanatory memorandum emphasises that the shared responsibility procedure must be applied if the assisted living home does not agree with the resident`s decisions, even if the only person concerned is the resident himself. This raises the conclusion, confirmed by the debate in the working group, that shared responsibility agreements are almost exclusively intended to protect the institution from regulatory requirements and legal action. This confusing and contradictory recommendation is not necessary. Disputes between residents and facilities are currently resolved through care planning in assisted living homes across the country. In Wisconsin, some NRAs specified not only what measures the risk mitigation facility would take, but also what the facility would not do to address the risk. For example, in the case of non-adherence to a diabetic diet, the NRA said the facility cannot monitor food intake 24 hours a day, prevent purchases at the property`s gift shop, and remove candy from the resident`s apartment. In another NRA, which addressed the institution`s concerns about a resident on long, unsupervised walks, the NRA determined that the facility would encourage the resident to ask another resident to walk with her; that it will unsubscribe when it leaves the building; it does not go beyond where it can see the building; and that it is not possible to monitor the comings and goings 24 hours a day and to follow the walks in the open air. Refusal to use a walker. Most experts agreed that an NRA would be appropriate if a resident refused to use a walker, even though her doctor and physical therapist said she was at high risk of falling if she didn`t. .
. .