For decades, the care sector has tackled falls with a patchwork of well-intentioned interventions: wearable alarms, pressure mats, bedrails, post-incident documentation.

Each has played its part.

But together, these methods form a framework built on reaction, not prevention.

The uncomfortable truth is that the traditional approach is not keeping residents safe enough, and it is leaving care teams overburdened and unsupported.

A Legacy of Reaction

In most care homes today, the fall response begins after the fall has already occurred. This is the essence of a reactive model.

Whether it’s a resident pulling a call cord or a pressure mat triggering an alert, staff are trained to respond rapidly, assess injuries, notify families, and file incident reports. The tools may vary, but the pattern is always the same: the harm has happened—now what?

This is not to say these systems are unhelpful.

Far from it.

In many cases, a timely response can make the difference between a bruise and a hospital admission. But response is not prevention. And relying solely on reaction means accepting that falls will continue to happen.

Detection is Not Enough

Let’s be clear: detection systems are not prevention systems.

Fall detection tools are designed to notice when a resident is already on the floor. Often, this relies on wearable pendants, floor sensors, or even surveillance cameras. But all these systems have critical limitations:

• Residents don’t always wear pendants or may forget them.
• Fall mats only activate after impact has occurred.
• Cameras introduce privacy and consent concerns, and constant monitoring is impractical.
• Most systems rely on the resident taking action—such as pressing a button—which many cannot do post-fall due to disorientation or injury.

Meanwhile, staff must constantly monitor systems, triage alerts, and cross-reference multiple sources of information.

In short, these tools tell us something bad has happened—but not before it’s too late.

The Hidden Cost to Care Staff

Responding to falls places a significant burden on carers and nurses. Each incident triggers a chain of actions:

• Checking and comforting the resident.
• Assessing injuries and escalating medical support if required.
• Completing incident forms and updating care plans.
• Communicating with families, management, and possibly regulators.

This is not just time-consuming—it is emotionally draining. Staff are often left feeling that they are reacting to crises rather than providing the kind of preventative, person-centred care they trained for.

And this problem compounds.

Each fall reduces staff confidence.

Each emergency further stretches thinly resourced teams.

Every hour spent responding is an hour not spent preventing.

It becomes a vicious cycle.

Regulatory Pressure Without the Right Tools 

In recent years, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has rightly tightened its focus on fall management. Inspectors now scrutinise:

• Fall incident logs.
• The frequency and severity of events.
• Evidence that learning has been embedded into care planning.
• Proactive strategies used to reduce recurrence.

But while expectations have risen, many care homes are still reliant on outdated tools. This creates a frustrating mismatch: high regulatory demands, but low confidence in the systems designed to meet them.

To meet modern expectations - clinical, ethical, and operational - a new model is needed.

False Sense of Security

Traditional systems can also give rise to a false sense of control. Devices are installed, policies written, and boxes ticked. But if the core assumption is still, “falls will happen—we just need to act fast,” then the opportunity for meaningful change has been missed.

For example:

• Bedrails may appear to offer safety, but in reality, they can increase injury severity if a resident tries to climb over them.
• Alarms may ring, but without context, staff may misprioritise or respond too late.
• Care plans may list fall risk, but without real-time data, staff are left guessing.

This reactive posture not only fails to prevent harm but may also undermine residents’ autonomy and dignity, core values at the heart of adult social care.

The Limitations of Static Risk Assessments

Another major flaw in the current model is the over-reliance on static fall risk assessments. These evaluations are typically completed at scheduled intervals—weekly, monthly, or after an incident.

But residents are not static.

Their health status, medication effects, mood, hydration, and cognitive clarity all fluctuate, sometimes within hours. Traditional assessments cannot capture these real-time changes.

As a result, they are often outdated the moment they are completed.

In practice, this means a resident may be marked “low risk” on paper but may be at high risk due to fatigue, urinary urgency, or confusion in the moment. The tools simply aren’t responsive enough.

The Emotional and Cultural Cost

Perhaps the most profound cost of the old model is cultural. It fosters a sense of resignation—a belief that falls are a fact of life in care homes. “We’re doing our best,” becomes the refrain. And indeed, most teams are doing their best with the tools they’ve been given.

But what if we gave them better tools? What if we gave them data-driven insights, predictive alerts, and the power to intervene before a resident is at risk?

The care sector does not lack compassion.

It does not lack commitment.

What it has lacked—until recently—is the technology to match its values.

Download the full e-book here.

This ebook is not about assigning blame to past methods.

It is about charting a new course.

One where detection is still present, but as a safety net, not the frontline strategy.

One where technology works alongside carers, not above them.

One where every resident has the chance to live with confidence, not in quiet fear.