What is quality in assisted living technology? The ARCHIE framework for effective telehealth and telecare services

BMC Medicine

Mark Rouncefield¹  Sue Hinder³  Paul Sugarhood²  Joe Wherton⁴  Rob Procter³  Trisha Greenhalgh⁵ 

[1] Department of Computing, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK;East London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK;Department of Computer Science, Queen Mary University, Coventry, UK;Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK;Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, 2nd floor, New Radcliffe House, Walton St, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK

关键词: Ethnography;    Co-design;    Quality;    Multi-morbidity;    Telecare;    Telehealth;   

Others  :  1174831
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-015-0279-6

 received in 2015-01-15, accepted in 2015-01-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

We sought to define quality in telehealth and telecare with the aim of improving the proportion of patients who receive appropriate, acceptable and workable technologies and services to support them living with illness or disability.

Methods

This was a three-phase study: (1) interviews with seven technology suppliers and 14 service providers, (2) ethnographic case studies of 40 people, 60 to 98 years old, with multi-morbidity and assisted living needs and (3) 10 co-design workshops. In phase 1, we explored barriers to uptake of telehealth and telecare. In phase 2, we used ethnographic methods to build a detailed picture of participants’ lives, illness experiences and technology use. In phase 3, we brought users and their carers together with suppliers and providers to derive quality principles for assistive technology products and services.

Results

Interviews identified practical, material and organisational barriers to smooth introduction and continued support of assistive technologies. The experience of multi-morbidity was characterised by multiple, mutually reinforcing and inexorably worsening impairments, producing diverse and unique care challenges. Participants and their carers managed these pragmatically, obtaining technologies and adapting the home. Installed technologies were rarely fit for purpose. Support services for technologies made high (and sometimes oppressive) demands on users. Six principles emerged from the workshops. Quality telehealth or telecare is 1) ANCHORED in a shared understanding of what matters to the user; 2) REALISTIC about the natural history of illness; 3) CO-CREATIVE, evolving and adapting solutions with users; 4) HUMAN, supported through interpersonal relationships and social networks; 5) INTEGRATED, through attention to mutual awareness and knowledge sharing; 6) EVALUATED to drive system learning.

Conclusions

Technological advances are important, but must be underpinned by industry and service providers following a user-centred approach to design and delivery. For the ARCHIE principles to be realised, the sector requires: (1) a shift in focus from product (‘assistive technologies’) to performance (‘supporting technologies-in-use’); (2) a shift in the commissioning model from standardised to personalised home care contracts; and (3) a shift in the design model from ‘walled garden’, branded products to inter-operable components that can be combined and used flexibly across devices and platforms.

Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0305-8 webcite.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Greenhalgh et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lewin D, Adshead S, Glennon B, Williamson B, Moore T, Damodaran L, et al.: Assisted living technologies for older and disabled people in 2030. A final report to Ofcom. Plum Consulting, London; 2010.
• [2]Cohen SA: A review of demographic and infrastructural factors and potential solutions to the physician and nursing shortage predicted to impact the growing US elderly population. J Public Health Manag Pract 2009, 15:352-62.
• [3]Greenhalgh T, Procter R, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Shaw S: The organising vision for telehealth and telecare: discourse analysis. BMJ Open 2012, 2:e001574.
• [4]Demiris G, Hensel BK. Technologies for an aging society: a systematic review of “smart home” applications. Yearb Med Inform. 2008:33–40.
• [5]Commission to the European Parliament European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Ageing well in the information society: an i2010 initiative. Action plan on information and communication technologies and ageing. European Union, Brussels; 2007.
• [6]McCartney M: Show us the evidence for telehealth. BMJ 2012, 344:e469.
• [7]Oudshoorn N: Who cares? Telecare technoloiges and the transformation of healthcare. Routledge, London; 2010.
• [8]Percival J, Hanson J: Big brother or brave new world? Telecare and its implications for older people’s independence and social inclusion. Crit Soc Policy 2009, 12:358.
• [9]Steventon A, Bardsley M, Billings J, Dixon J, Doll H, Hirani S, et al.: Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2012, 344:e3874.
• [10]Greenhalgh T: Whole System Demonstrator trial: policy, politics, and publication ethics. BMJ 2012, 345:e5280.
• [11]Dourish P, Bell G: Divining a digital future: mess and mythology in ubiquitous computing. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; 2011.
• [12]Mort M, Roberts C, Pols J, Domenech M, Moser I. Ethical implications of home telecare for older people: a framework derived from a multisited participative study. Health Expect. 2013. doi:10.1111/hex.12109.
• [13]Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Hinder S, Procter R, Stones R: What matters to older people with assisted living needs? A phenomenological analysis of the use and non-use of telehealth and telecare. Soc Sci Med 2013, 93:86-94.
• [14]Oudshoorn N: Telecare technologies and the transformation of healthcare. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke; 2011.
• [15]Pols J: Care at a distance: on the closeness of technology. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam; 2012.
• [16]Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Dewsbury G, Hinder S, et al.: Designing assisted living technologies ‘in the wild’: preliminary experiences with cultural probe methodology. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012, 12:188. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Sugarhood P, Wherton J, Procter R, Hinder S, Greenhalgh T: Technology as system innovation: a key informant interview study of the application of the diffusion of innovation model to telecare. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2013, 9:1-9.
• [18]Procter R, Greenhalgh T, Wherton J, Sugarhood P, Rouncefield M, Hinder S: The day-to-day co-production of ageing in place. Computer-Supported Co-op Work (CSCW) 2014, 23:245-67.
• [19]Merleau-Ponty M: Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1945/1962.
• [20]Heidegger M: Being and time (Translated by E. Robinson and J. Macquarrie). Harper and Row, New York; 1962.
• [21]Pickard S: A new political anatomy of the older body? An examination of approaches to illness in old age in primary care. Ageing Soc 2012, 1:1-24.
• [22]Pickard S, Rogers A: Knowing as practice: self-care in the case of chronic multi-morbidities. Soc Theory Health 2012, 10:101-20.
• [23]Sayer A: Why things matter to people. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2011.
• [24]Madison DS: Critical ethnography: method, ethics, and performance. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2011.
• [25]Star SL: Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: working on the fringes. Scand J Inf Syst 2002, 14:107-22.
• [26]Oudshoorn N: How places matter: telecare technologies and the changing spatial dimensions of healthcare. Soc Stud Sci 2012, 42:121-42.
• [27]Brittain K, Corner L, Robinson L, Bond J: Ageing in place and technologies of place: the lived experience of people with dementia in changing social, physical and technological environments. Sociol Health Illn 2010, 32:272-87.
• [28]Bate P, Robert G: Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: the concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design. Radcliffe Publishing, Abingdon; 2007.
• [29]Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D: Studying technology use as social practice: the untapped potential of ethnography. BMC Med 2011, 9:45. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Dewsbury G, Sommerville I, Bagnall P, Rouncefield M, Onditi V: Software co-design with older people. In Designing Accessible Technology. Springer, London; 2006:199-208.
• [31]Robert GB: Participatory action research: using experience-based co-design to improve the quality of healthcare services. In Understanding and Using Health Experiences – improving patient care. Oxford University Press, Oxford; 2013.
• [32]Strauss A, Corbin J: Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park; 1990.
• [33]ATHENE. www.atheneproject.org.
• [34]Dourish P, Bellotti V: Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work. ACM, New York; 1992:107-14.
• [35]Spence PR, Reddy M: Beyond expertise seeking: a field study of the informal knowledge practices of healthcare IT teams. Computer-Supported Coop Work (CSCW) 2012, 21:283-315.
• [36]Hyde P, Harris C, Boaden R: Pro-social organisational behaviour of health care workers. Int J Hum Resour Manag 2013, 24:3115-30.
• [37]Argyris C: Double-loop learning, teaching, and research. Acad Manag Learn Educ 2002, 1:206-18.
• [38]EFORTT research team: ethical frameworks for telecare technologies for older people at home. Project 217787. Lancaster: University of Lancaster, Accessed January 2013 on http://www.lancs.ac.uk/efortt; 2012.
• [39]Hartswood M, Procter RN, Rouchy P, Rouncefield M, Slack R, Voss A: Working IT out in medical practice: IT systems design and development as co-realisation. Methods Inf Med 2003, 42:392-7.
• [40]Mort M, Roberts C, Callén B: Ageing with telecare: care or coercion in austerity? Sociol Health Illn 2013, 35:799-812.
• [41]Hughes J, King V, Rodden T, Andersen H: Moving out from the control room: ethnography in system design. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work: 1994. ACM, New York; 1994:429-39.
• [42]Dourish P: What we talk about when we talk about context. Pers Ubiquit Comput 2004, 8:19-30.