Suchergebnisse

Abstract. Informal carers' telecare acceptance decisions
depend on how their care recipients perceive telecare,
yet this relationship has not been researched very much.
This article draws on qualitative data gathered from
informal carers to explore reciprocity in telecare perceptions
within dyads of informal carers and care receivers.
A 4-month intervention study was conducted from
2018 to 2019 in the Central Slovenia region. A purposive
sample of 22 older adults and their informal carers
tested two telecare solutions. Thematic analysis was
conducted using Atlas.ti 8, with four themes emerging:
1. the benefits of telecare use for older adults; 2. reluctance,
rejection or negative perceptions of telecare; 3.
the potential violation of older adults' privacy; and 4.
the importance of external and internal information
for effective telecare use. This study confirms that that
telecare perception is dyadically interdependent.
Keywords: assistive technologies, informal care, ageing
in place, dyads, older adults

Telecare is increasingly recognized as an essential tool for a contemporary twenty-first century health care system even though the evidence is still emerging on its effectiveness. The need to find delivery models like telecare that improve both the convenience and value of care is universal, but particularly pressing for countries like the U.S. and Israel who are facing rising costs related to the needs of individuals with multiple complex conditions. This commentary provides highlights of the current state of practice and policy for telecare and the challenges that remain ahead as it is adopted into the mainstream.

The development of telecare services in the UK has been supported by grants from the respective governments of Scotland and Wales, and by the Department of Health in England. New services are being established, sometimes to operate alongside existing community equipment services and community alarm services. Elsewhere they are embracing a wider range of services including rehabilitation, intermediate care and health services designed to reduce use of unscheduled care services. This paper discusses the difficulties in understanding the scope of telecare services, and the definitions of services that will need to be confirmed if service users are to be able to choose appropriately if offered direct payments. Two service models are offered, one of which uses telehealth as an umbrella term to cover all telecare, e‐care and m‐care, and telemedicine, where the former includes all such services offered in the service user's home, including those of a medical nature. The second model views telecare alongside assistive technologies and telemedicine as one of three technology groups designed to make people more independent, or to bring care closer to home. There is significant overlap between the three groups, which justifies the introduction of a new term ‐ ARTS (assistive and remote technology services) ‐ to describe this area of support.

The development of telecare services across the UK has been supported by grants from the respective governments of Scotland and Wales, and by the DH in England. New services are being established to sometimes operate alongside existing community equipment services and community alarm services. Elsewhere they are embracing a wider range of services including rehabilitation, intermediate care and health services designed to reduce the use of unscheduled care services. This paper discusses the difficulties in understanding the scope of telecare services, and the definitions of services that will need to be confirmed so that service users can choose appropriately if offered direct payments. Two different service models are offered, one of which uses telehealth as an umbrella term to cover all telecare, e‐care and m‐care, and telemedicine where the former includes all such services offered in the service user's home, including those of a medical nature. The second model views telecare alongside assistive technologies and telemedicine as one of three different technology groups designed to make people more independent or to bring care closer to home. There is significant overlap between the three groups, which justifies the introduction of a new term ‐ ARTS (assistive and remote technology services) ‐ to describe this area of support.

Background To investigate organisational factors influencing the implementation challenges of redesigning services for people with long term conditions in three locations in England, using remote care (telehealth and telecare). Methods Case-studies of three sites forming the UK Department of Health's Whole Systems Demonstrator (WSD) Programme. Qualitative research techniques were used to obtain data from various sources, including semi-structured interviews, observation of meetings over the course programme and prior to its launch, and document review. Participants were managers and practitioners involved in the implementation of remote care services. Results The implementation of remote care was nested within a large pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT), which formed a core element of the WSD programme. To produce robust benefits evidence, many aspect of the trial design could not be easily adapted to local circumstances. While remote care was successfully rolled-out, wider implementation lessons and levels of organisational learning across the sites were hindered by the requirements of the RCT. Conclusions The implementation of a complex innovation such as remote care requires it to organically evolve, be responsive and adaptable to the local health and social care system, driven by support from front-line staff and management. This need for evolution was not always aligned with the imperative to gather robust benefits evidence. This tension needs to be resolved if government ambitions for the evidence-based scaling-up of remote care are to be realised.