| Literature DB >> 35830226 |
Frank Knoefel1,2,3,4,5, Chantal Trudel1,3, Mirou Jaana2, Catherine Wilson6, Raymond B Wallace1,3,5, Laura Ault1,2,5, Piers Waldie3, Maryam Attef3, Neil Thomas1,2,4,5, Rafik Goubran1,3,5, Heidi Sveistrup1,2,5, Patrick Tan7, Amy Hsu1,2, Shaundra Ridha4.
Abstract
Supportive smart home technology, for older adults living with dementia and their informal care partners, has shown some benefits in private homes. In this study, a supportive smart home system is being implemented in a hospital alternative level of care setting. This case report describes how a team of researchers and healthcare managers are navigating the complexities of a hospital setting, using human-centred design and implementation strategies, to facilitate the implementation and adoption of the technology.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35830226 PMCID: PMC9425717 DOI: 10.1177/08404704221103537
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Healthc Manage Forum ISSN: 0840-4704
Observed challenges and opportunities.
| Challenges observed | Technology opportunities | |
|---|---|---|
| A patient asks for assistance ... | • The PSW is occupied with another patient. | Could the technology help monitor and assist patients with lower care needs to allow skilled staff to focus more attention on patients with higher care need? |
| A patient needs assistance with self-care but is resistant to support ... | • PSW needs assistance from another PSW to complete the task. | |
| Patients have different language needs ... | • PSWs rely on a printed sheet of translations of basic needs to understand patients to reduce frustration. | Could the technology help patients by speaking their language? |
| Staff use their knowledge of the patients to better attend to their needs ... | • It can take days or weeks to get to know new patients. | Could the technology help staff learn patients' behaviours to allow for more patient specific care? |
| Staff must urgently attend to patient alarms ... | • The patient alarm sounds in the nursing office and staff sometimes need to double check the alarm code sheet to attend to the right room. | Could the technology reduce alarm delays and improve staff response time? |
Greystone brainstorming: Technology and patients’ behaviour.
| Which patient behaviours do you think you would like to monitor to provide better care? | Frequency (number of staff) |
|---|---|
| Risk - falling | 15 |
| Behaviour - aggression/agitation
| 11 |
| Behaviour - wandering
| 11 |
| Behaviour - language
| 7 |
| Behaviour - care needs | 5 |
| Behaviour - confusion | 5 |
| Behaviour - independent activity (ie, sleeping) | 3 |
| No response | 2 |
| Risk - self-harm | 2 |
| Communication - staff-to-staff | 1 |
| Awareness - environmental (ie, loud noises and frantic environment) | 1 |
aWhat are the cues that lead to someone becoming agitated?
bHow would you describe/characterize wandering (exiting vs. daily activity)?
cCould we have the family member record voice cues for the patient to reduce wandering?
Greystone brainstorming: Technology and patients’ behaviour.
| Which features of the technology would make it most helpful? | Frequency (number of staff) |
|---|---|
| Awareness - patient alarms (bed and chair) | 17 |
| Communication - language barrier | 11 |
| Awareness - patient activity (ie, lights under the beds and big screen in the hallway showing the patient calling) | 10 |
| Usability | 7 |
| Awareness - visual | 7 |
| Staff - workload (ie, less paperwork and short staffing) | 6 |
| Communication - staff-to-staff | 5 |
| Other - not technology related | 4 |
| Recording - patient activity | 3 |
| Communication - levels of urgency | 3 |
| Communication - staff/patient | 2 |
| No response | 1 |