Telecare Soapbox: Responsibility of the market leader

Anonymous commentator applies some concepts from the technology adoption life cycle to consider progress – or not – in the UK’s telehealth market.

Being a market leader has one key responsibility: to grow the overall market. The market leader cannot make significant growth by focusing on taking business from its smaller competitors as there is not sufficient business to be gained. Market growth is achieved by promoting and proving the value to be had from innovative products and by the innovation of the applications, mainstream and niche, for which their products can be used.

So let’s look at what has happened in telehealth in the UK… (more…)

Telecare Soapbox: Britain’s Got Pendants

With this headline everyone – in the UK at least – will know what I was watching last week but it set me thinking: where did the English telecare initiative that started in 2004 go wrong? Why has it failed to deliver the stunning performance that seemed so certain after such a strong second round and getting through to the final?

Was the Telecare Policy Collaborative just a flash in the pan?

Did Building Telecare in England hit some wrong notes?

Was the Preventative Technology Grant a flawed act?

Has the PASA National Telecare Framework Agreement lost its glitter?

In short, why is it that

most of Britain is still suffering the same jaded routine (pendant alarm systems) as 10 years ago, albeit re-branded as ‘telecare’, when the Policy Collaborative was trying to boil up something fresh, daring, diverse and dynamic?

Can telecare, as originally envisaged, be rescued from the sidelined losers?

Put yourself in a judge’s seat and have your say in a comment.

Telecare Soapbox: Northern Ireland’s ‘unhappy first birthday’ approaches

We are now approaching a year since Northern Ireland’s Centre for Connected Health published its Prior Information Notice (PDF) for a large-scale, province-wide remote patient monitoring service.

It’s not a happy first birthday because, as far as anyone can tell, the procurement process is not likely to come to a satisfactory conclusion any time soon.

For us on the outside it is hard to tell whether this is due to the complicated nature of the task, or incompetence, or a mixture of both.

However, as a matter of opinion, it didn’t help that the tender invitation did not include information that the selection criteria would exclude ‘small’ suppliers with relevant experience, some of whom committed resources to prepare a bid for a process in which they later discovered they would not be allowed to participate… (more…)

Telecare Soapbox: When is a healthcare company a healthcare company?

Steve Hards asks “What questions should telehealth commissioners be asking suppliers?”

Now that the laughter in the UK’s telecare/telehealth community over Tunstall’s name change in the UK to ‘Tunstall Healthcare’ has subsided into a rather nervous giggle, it’s an appropriate time to raise the question of what criteria does a company have to meet to be recognised as a healthcare company? (more…)

Telecare Aware’s Terminology Campaign

What’s the problem?

Multiple meanings of the words ‘telecare’, ‘telehealth’, ‘telemedicine’, etc. abound. Conversely, similar concepts have many names. As a consequence:

  • Professionals use their preferred terminology and confuse journalists
  • Journalists’ misconceptions spread public confusion
  • Speed of adoption of the technology is retarded
  • People suffer without appropriate monitoring systems
  • Suppliers have to work harder to thrive
  • The development of new technologies falters

What’s the solution and where will it come from?

I used to believe that the matter would evolve towards a solution. However, I now see it evolving towards greater confusion. We have reached a situation where a standard, internationally recognised taxonomy and set of definitions needs to be agreed and adopted.

However, it is no one’s responsibility to take on this task. The only organisation that has a broad base of worldwide technology suppliers and which has a remit to develop any international standards (albeit only in the health technology arena at the moment) is the Continua Alliance. It is in the Alliance’s members’ long term interest to tackle this problem.

What role will Telecare Aware play?

During 2008 Telecare Aware will post links to news items that illustrate the problems. I am happy to open up these pages to everyone who is interested in this issue and invite contributions by way of articles and comments. Although I have some views about how words should be applied in this field (see the What is Telecare page, for example) I am more concerned that an international consensus is formed than I am about promoting my particular usage.

Where shall we start?

Start with this excellent blog posting by Guy Dewsbury: The Language of Telecare. It begins: “I am not sure about you, but I think it is time to resurrect the debate about terminology. I have recently been to a number of conferences and at these events people use the words Telecare, Telehealth, Telemedicine and Assistive Technology…

Then move on to this article Telecare, telehealth and assistive technologies – do we know what we’re talking about? Doughty, K et al, published in the Journal of Assistive Technologies (Volume 1 Issue 2, December 2007) and made available to Telecare Aware readers by kind permission of Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd.

Steve Hards

Telecare Soapbox: Council runs liability risk with inappropriate telecare provision

James Batchelor, MD of Alertacall, raises a serious issue for councils and other telecare suppliers: what risk is a council running when its employee substitutes a ‘standard’ but inappropriate equipment package for a privately-funded one that was more suitable for the client? Would the person’s consent to the course of action be a defence if the consent were based on inappropriate advice? (more…)

Telecare, telehealth and assistive technologies – do we know what we’re talking about?

An abbreviated version of this article follows, with kind permission of Pavilion Publishing. Visit the homepage of its Journal of Assistive Technologies. You can also download a PDF of the full Telecare, telehealth and assistive technologies – do we know what we’re talking about? article when you have read this extract. The Journal of Assistive Technologies would welcome articles responding to the debates covered in this piece – please submit pieces to be considered for publication to the editor, Chris Abbott at chris.abbott@kcl.ac.uk The article exposes the current taxonomy problem very well, looking from two directions at the range of technologies in this field. It finishes by suggesting alternative terminology to help resolve the difficulties we now face. Is that the right way forward, or will it just add to the confusion?


Telecare, telehealth and assistive technologies – do we know what we’re talking about?

(Abbreviated version) Authors: Kevin Doughty, Andrew Monk, Carole Bayliss, Sian Brown, Lena Dewsbury, Barbara Dunk, Vance Gallagher, Kathy Grafham, Martin Jones, Charles Lowe, Lynne McAlister, Kevin McSorley, Pam Mills, Clare Skidmore, Aileen Stewart, Barbara Taylor and David Ward (The Centre for Usable Home Technologies (CUHTec) Advanced Telecare Users Group)

Abstract

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.

Introduction

There is renewed interest in the role that may be played by community services that are based on technologies that support independence i.e. assistive technologies. Traditional forms of assistive technology include low-tech portable devices such as walking sticks, spectacles and tap turners, to more expensive fixed systems such as stair-lifts, ramps and level-access showers (that are essentially adaptations to the home). Several new items of assistive technology have appeared during the past 20 years, many depending on electronic, computing and telecommunication innovations. Systems such as environmental controllers have enabled profoundly disabled people to operate electrical appliances, motorised door and window openers and other electrical equipment through a personal interface arrangement. [In the UK] the term ‘telecare’ was selected to cover all electronic technologies of a preventive or supportive nature because it had the necessary ‘buzz’ and because it implied a modular approach and a need for a developing telecommunications infrastructure. Although the fundamental purpose of the technology is to avoid unscheduled care incidents and, in particular, the management of long term conditions, it can support independence because it is capable of overcoming the need for people to move prematurely into a nursing home environment. Such technology would appear to be a medical application of telecare, which would be consistent with the new definition of telecare described above. However, remote and regular (but not continuous) vital signs monitoring may be fundamentally different to existing UK telecare systems because the purpose is to collect data rather than offer an automated alarm. In the USA (where there is currently little use made of the UK model of telecare), remote vital signs monitoring systems are known as telehealth systems. The term “telehealth” has therefore been imported into the UK with little thought of how it co-exists alongside the telecare agenda. More perversely, telehealth has in Europe for many years been the umbrella term used for a broad range of technologies which includes telemedicine (the sharing of medical data, including scans and visual images), e-care or m-care (which involves data transfer on a mobile basis) and telecare. The result is that, under the previous model, telecare is a sub-set of telehealth technologies, whilst in the new model, apparently supported by equipment vendors and other bodies, telehealth is a sub-set of telecare.

Model 1 – Telehealth Umbrella Model

The original definition of telehealthcare effectively based its sub-sections on the location of the care that was being delivered remotely i.e. the home, some community location, and a medical facility. Telecommunication technologies have matured quickly in the 21st Century. Similarly, information systems and the embedded intelligence in devices have become progressively more sophisticated enabling them to be included in relatively low-cost equipment for the home. This yields a host of new services as shown in Figure 1. Alongside the three components of Telehealth are shown a growing range of Assistive Technologies which, though not requiring any connection to a remote care manager, nevertheless perform a valuable role in helping to overcome unmet needs. Figure 1: The Telehealth Umbrella for Technology Telehealth umbrella for technology

Model 2 – Telecare Umbrella Model

Telecare has become a term used for all preventive technologies that involve the use of electronics, telecommunications and information systems. It can therefore cover the spectrum of applications from alarms through to monitoring of vital signs and activities both in the home and on the move. Thus, if terms such as telehealth were to include all forms of medical monitoring and information, including health coaching, then a broader form of telecare could extend across from environmental through to medical applications. It follows that some electronic aids to daily living, such as prompts, reminders and local alarms, might also be considered to be examples of telecare (as well as being assistive technologies). In the same way, mobile applications of worn or embedded medical devices (such as cardiac arrhythmia monitors) could be considered to be telecare when used in the home but telemedicine if data or alerts are directed to a consultant in a hospital. Figure 2 offers an alternative map of services where telecare becomes the umbrella term with assistive technologies and telemedicine covering a much smaller group of modalities that are associated with housing adaptations and hospital services respectively. Figure 2: The Continuum of Care Technologies Centred on Telecare Care technologies centred on telecare

Discussion and Conclusions

Perhaps telehealth is a more important concept because everyone needs their health but not everyone will need care. If we used the term “telehealthcare” then perhaps we can avoid confusion because it clearly incorporates both telehealth and telecare. It doesn’t necessarily include traditional forms of Assistive Technologies. Amid the debate, there remains the thought that individual provision of services is required based on a holistic assessment. This is the only way of assuring that the solution is person-centred. As we are discussing equipment and services based on technology, maybe the term PROCESS Technologies (PeRsOn-Centred Equipment & Support Services) could be employed as the umbrella term. Alternatively, the coming together of assistive technologies and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) might yield a hybrid term such as ARTS (Assistive & Remote Technology Services) which may be acceptable to all. In each case, it may be appropriate to separate the individual elements into their respective roles:

  1. Functional support – replacing or improving an individual’s ability to perform one or more activities of daily living with devices (including robots) which can compensate for the user’s physical, sensory or intellectual/cognitive deficiencies
  2. Alerts and alarms – sensors or combinations of sensors which detect situations where the individual’s safety and security (and increasingly health and well-being also) may be at risk
  3. Monitoring – methods of providing an on-going assessment (or analysis) of an individual’s medical, psychological, well-being, performance or behavioural state so that interventions can be offered before an emergency arises, and
  4. Interactive and virtual services – systems which overcome the problems of distance and isolation in advising, empowering and, hence, enabling people to become partners in the process of improving their quality of life.

Service providers of the future may need to offer all these services in order to meet the aims of commissioners. Those which reject individual service elements must be clear in advertising what they can and can’t do in order that everyone understands their limitations and/or specialities. Whilst a vision of the future potential for these technologies may be a prerequisite for service development, the adoption of standard definitions will greatly simplify the process of establishing best practice and improving service delivery and integration.


PDF Download

Download the full Telecare, telehealth and assistive technologies – do we know what we’re talking about? article in PDF form. Visit the site of the Journal of Assistive Technologies.


Comment

Does the article tease out all the problems? Although there is a reference to ‘proactive calling’ in one of the diagrams it does, to me, seem to omit one sense of ‘telecare’ which is widely used, particularly since the profile that Ontario Telecare has obtained. In this sense telecare is used to mean giving phone-based and online health advice to the public, as in the manner of the UK’s NHS Direct service. To what extent this type of service should be included in the taxonomy and, if so, how it should be called, should form part of our debate.


Further comment from Kevin Doughty

Just for clarification on the phone helpline angle, my view is that Telecare includes all services that rely on technology to help support a person in the own homes from a distance. A telephone helpline which offers advice on medical conditions (e.g. NHS Direct) can therefore be considered to be telecare as much as a complex video surveillance system that detects problems and initiates interventions through ‘smart home’ technology, domestic robots or an emergency response team.

Baby boomers? Older people? Senior citizens? Elders?

Not telecare, but a terminology issue as it refers to the target client group for telecare/telehealth companies. When I read about ‘the elderly’ or worse, the near-meaningless, ‘the vulnerable’, I imagine that the writer is probably hardly out of their twenties or thirties, or still has that mindset. If you want to alienate your potential clients, this is the language to use.

A brief read, with an American perspective, but with interesting survey results. Baby boomers? Older people? Senior citizens? Elders? What would you like to be called in your middle and later years? by Rita R. Robison.