Which of the following statements is true about conservators?

A. Because a conservatorship is the least restrictive alternative, a court hearing is not required.

Explanation: This statement is not accurate. Conservatorships are legal arrangements that involve the appointment of a conservator to manage the financial affairs and assets of an individual who is unable to do so themselves. While conservatorships may be necessary for the protection of the individual, they are not automatically considered the least restrictive alternative, and a court hearing is typically required to establish one.

B. The most legally restricting way individuals and property can be handled are through conservatorships and guardianships.

Explanation: This statement is partially true. Conservatorships and guardianships are legal mechanisms that grant authority to individuals (conservators and guardians, respectively) to manage the affairs of someone who is unable to do so themselves. While they involve legal restrictions, whether they are the most restrictive or not can depend on the specific details of the arrangement and the jurisdiction.

C. A conservatorship entails control over property, whereas a guardianship entails control over the person.

Explanation: This statement is true. In general, a conservatorship focuses on managing the financial affairs and assets of an individual, while a guardianship involves decision-making authority over personal and healthcare matters. The roles and responsibilities of conservators and guardians may vary by jurisdiction, but the distinction between control over property and control over the person is a common principle.

D. Conservators cannot be members of the conservatee's (client's) family.

Explanation: This statement is not universally true. In many cases, family members can be appointed as conservators. The court will typically consider the best interests of the individual in need of protection when appointing a conservator, and a family member may be deemed suitable if they can fulfill the responsibilities of the role. The specific rules regarding who can be a conservator may vary by jurisdiction.

A. "Side rails do not decrease falls, but they do decrease fall-related injuries."

Explanation: While side rails may reduce the severity of injuries if a fall occurs, they are not proven to decrease the overall rate of falls. Additionally, side rails themselves can pose risks, including entrapment.

B. There is no evidence that side rail use decreases falls, and in fact, there is a greater risk of injury."

Explanation: The use of side rails as a fall prevention measure has been associated with risks and has not been shown to effectively decrease the overall rate of falls. There is evidence that side rails can contribute to injuries, including entrapment, when patients attempt to climb over or through them. The focus in fall prevention has shifted towards individualized assessments, environmental modifications, and other strategies that address the specific needs and risks of each patient.

C. "Side rails are only effective when used with patients who have dementia."

Explanation: The effectiveness of side rails is not limited to patients with dementia. However, the use of side rails as a general fall prevention strategy has been questioned, and their use should be carefully considered based on individual assessments and risks.

D. "Side rails have only proven to be effective in decreasing falls in patients who have already fallen."

Explanation: The use of side rails is not universally proven to be effective in decreasing falls, even in patients who have previously fallen. The decision to use side rails should be based on a thorough assessment of the individual's needs and risks, considering alternatives to promote safety.