Enschede, 26 October 2026

Open doors, and one less worry? On the Care and Coercion Act and the role of technology

At 20Face, we talk to a lot of care organisations. One question keeps coming back: how do you give clients as much freedom as possible without compromising their safety? The Dutch Care and Coercion Act (Wet zorg en dwang, Wzd) asks care organisations to find exactly that balance. It isn’t easy, and to be honest, there is no one-size-fits-all answer. We do see a clear pattern, though, and we’d like to share it with you.

Five types of locations, five types of choices

Broadly speaking, locations and wards in care can be divided into five types:

1. A closed ward
2. An enclosed site
3. An “open, unless” approach
4. A hybrid of the above
5. An open location or the home situation

For each resident, the risk of wandering, running away, going missing, vulnerability or aggression is assessed. How an organisation deals with this depends heavily on its own vision, and above all on its risk appetite: how much risk are you willing to accept as an organisation in exchange for freedom?

Fences and locks: simple, but not necessary for everyone

Organisations with a low risk appetite often opt for fencing and locks at group level. Legally, this is straightforward, but it also means that residents who don’t need these restrictions are restricted just the same. This is under close scrutiny in the supervision by the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate (IGJ) and in the evaluations of the Care and Coercion Act. The Inspectorate has also examined how care organisations are moving towards open doors. That report is well worth reading.

Individual living circles: freedom at a price

Organisations with a high risk appetite opt for individual living circles. They accept that someone will occasionally “escape” and see this as the price of freedom. This does require transparency: the risk must be discussed explicitly with family or the legal representative and recorded in the care plan. Likelihood and impact are the key considerations here.

Technology as a tipping point

This is exactly where technology makes the difference. The more precisely you can manage access per person, the more an organisation dares to open up without reducing safety. A system that reliably distinguishes between residents, visitors and staff makes an “open, unless” approach feasible for target groups that currently still live behind a locked door.

That is the core of it for us. Our wandering prevention based on facial comparison fits well with the “open, unless” and hybrid models, and with organisations that want to take the step towards more freedom.

To be fair: two points of attention

We won’t beat around the bush. There are two important points:

One: stopping a resident at risk of wandering is itself involuntary care if the resident or their representative objects. It then falls under “restricting freedom of movement” and “supervision”, and must therefore follow the step-by-step plan of the Care and Coercion Act. The technology must therefore be configurable per resident with a potential wandering risk, and everything must be logged so that the Wzd officer can account for it. Our privacy-proof solutions are designed with exactly this in mind.

Two: biometrics fall under Article 9 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the special categories of personal data. For residents who lack decision-making capacity and have a potential wandering risk, asking for consent is difficult. The legal basis and a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) must therefore be properly arranged. Always have this reviewed by your own privacy or legal adviser. We are happy to help, with references from organisations where our solutions are already in use, preventing tens of thousands of incidents at access doors and airlocks every year.

The business case: more than just euros

Of course, an investment needs to be justified both quantitatively and qualitatively. By now, we know this is possible. Discomfort, uncertainty, incidents and stress among staff and families are not only human costs; they can also be expressed in money. Think of search operations, extra staff deployment, absenteeism and staff turnover.

Let’s start the conversation

We still too often read cries for help and see helplessness among care professionals and families (see this recent example), while proven, stigma-free solutions are available. Would you like to explore what suits your locations, residents and vision? We’d be glad to think along with you and determine together what is “fit for purpose”.