There is a device sitting in a drawer in care homes across England. It is small, lightweight, and capable of telling a family member exactly where their loved one is at any given moment. It has been available for years. And yet the conversation around it remains mired in a false choice that has done real harm to real people.
The debate about GPS tracking for people living with dementia has long been framed as a binary: safety versus dignity. Surveillance versus freedom. Technology versus humanity. It is a framing that sounds philosophically serious but is, in practice, deeply unhelpful, and it has left too many providers paralysed, too many families in the dark, and too many people with dementia at unnecessary risk.
The Myth: GPS Tracking Is Inherently Undignified
The most persistent objection to GPS tracking devices in dementia care is that wearing one is, by definition, a violation of a person’s autonomy. The argument goes: if someone cannot consent to being tracked, tracking them is wrong. It sounds principled. It is also incomplete.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not prohibit the use of assistive technology for people who lack capacity. It requires that any decision made on their behalf is made in their best interests, with the least restrictive option considered. A GPS device worn on the wrist, enabling a person with dementia to walk in a garden, visit a local shop, or simply move through their environment without a carer shadowing their every step may, in many cases, be the least restrictive option available. The alternative is often a locked door.
The question is not whether GPS tracking respects dignity. The question is whether it respects dignity more or less than the alternatives being used in its absence.
The Reality: Most Providers Are Making This Up as They Go
Ask ten registered managers how their service approaches GPS tracking for residents with dementia and you will get ten different answers, and at least six of them will involve some version of “we haven’t really got a policy on that yet.” This is not a criticism of those managers. It reflects a genuine gap in sector-wide guidance.
The technology itself has matured considerably. Devices from providers such as Buddi, Oysta, and AngelSense offer real-time location data, geofencing alerts, two-way audio, and fall detection, all in a form factor that is increasingly discreet and comfortable. The hardware is no longer the problem. The problem is the governance framework around it.
Too many providers are either avoiding the technology entirely, citing vague concerns about consent and surveillance, or deploying it without adequate documentation, best interests assessments, or family involvement. Neither approach is defensible. The first leaves people at risk. The second leaves providers exposed.
What Good Practice Actually Looks Like
The providers getting this right are not the ones with the most sophisticated technology. They are the ones who have done the harder work of building a framework around it. That means:
- A clear policy that distinguishes between GPS tracking used to enable independence and tracking used to restrict it
- Documented best interests decisions, reviewed regularly and involving family members and advocates where appropriate
- A named lead, often the registered manager or a senior care coordinator, responsible for reviewing active tracking arrangements
- Transparency with residents, even where capacity is limited: explaining what the device does, in plain language, as part of daily care
- A sunset clause: tracking arrangements should be reviewed, not left running indefinitely on autopilot
None of this is especially complex. But it requires someone to own it, and in a sector where managers are already stretched across compliance, staffing, and quality assurance, GPS tracking governance tends to fall to the bottom of the pile.
The Consent Question Is Real, But It Is Not a Veto
It would be dishonest to dismiss the consent question entirely. There are genuine cases where GPS tracking is used in ways that are controlling rather than enabling, where the primary beneficiary is an anxious family member rather than the person being tracked, or where a device is used to justify reducing staffing rather than to genuinely extend a resident’s freedom of movement.
These are legitimate concerns. They are also, in the main, governance failures rather than technology failures. The answer is not to avoid GPS tracking. The answer is to build the oversight structures that prevent its misuse and to be honest, in best interests assessments, about whose interests are actually being served.
The sector has spent years debating whether GPS tracking is ethical in principle. It is time to move on to the more useful question: how do we use it well?
A Tool, Not a Solution
GPS tracking will not solve the dementia care crisis. It will not replace skilled, compassionate staff or compensate for under-resourced services. But for a significant number of people living with dementia, particularly those in the earlier stages, or those in supported living and home care settings, it can be the difference between a life lived with some degree of independence and a life spent behind a locked door.
That is not a small thing. And the providers who treat it as such, who file it under “too complicated” and move on, are not protecting their residents’ dignity. They are just choosing a different kind of risk.
