In the 2021 White Paper - People at the Heart: Adult social care reform, the Government pledged to invest at least £150m over three years ‘to drive digitisation across the sector, and unlock the potential of caretech innovation that enables preventative care and independent living’.
While these are laudable aims, lots of previous policies have promised to harness the benefits of new technology but have often seemed to over-promise and under-deliver.
In early 2023, a team from the NIHR BRACE rapid evaluation centre published an open access guide 'If I knew then what I know now..' for local authorities and care providers seeking to implement new and emerging forms of technology.
This was based on a recent national research study which sought to explore how social care commissioners and providers go about deciding to explore new technology, how they implement new ways of working and the early experiences of people who draw on care and support, carers and front-line staff.
This topic was chosen after a national prioritisation exercise identified various different forms of new technology as a social care innovation that would benefit from rapid evaluation.
While the focus of the study was on a particular form of technology - sensors with artificial intelligence [AI] technology, the research was really about decision-making and implementation, rather than about the technology itself.
Anonymised as ‘IndependencePlus’, the key features of this technology are set out below in a direct extract from the research report.
In this chapter, we set out how we plan to support the provision of outstanding quality care and move towards the choice, control and independence that people want by using the full potential of technology to support people’s lives and aspirations.
This means:
- Putting practical digital tools in the homes and the hands of those who draw on care and support and their carers.
- Equipping the social care workforce with the digital tools, knowledge and confidence they need to deliver outstanding quality care.
- Creating the digital and data infrastructure needed to drive future transformation in care delivery.
Key features of IndependencePlus
Sensors placed in key locations in individual homes collect information about an individual’s daily activities, without video or audio recording. Information that is collected includes: opening and closing of doors; getting out of bed; opening the refrigerator; using the kettle; and flushing the toilet.
Once data is collected on an individual for a sufficient period of time, a baseline can be established, allowing for automated processing of data indicating whether a measure has increased or decreased from the baseline, indicating potential improvement or decline of the individual drawing on care and support. To establish a baseline, continuous data collection is required over a period of time, which may be disturbed if sensors become disconnected or if they run out of battery.
Since the technology cannot distinguish between individuals within the living space, it is best used for individuals living alone, rather than in group living situations.
Individuals using IndependencePlus must have Wi-Fi connection for their data to be collected, and sensors must be plugged in or with a charged battery in order to operate.
Data from sensors for each individual are displayed on a data dashboard. In case study sites, only social care workers had access to this data dashboard, although it could theoretically be made available to individuals drawing on care and support or their carers. Social care staff then needed to interpret the data, and understand what increases or decreases in different parameters meant for the individual person.
Research findings
Working with three case study sites (a mix of councils and care providers) in England, as well as a number of care technology innovators, we identified multiple themes that might be helpful for others thinking about exploring new technology in future. Firstly, different people tended to have slightly different views as to what the new technology might be able to achieve. For some people, this was about identifying signs of a future crisis and working in a more preventative way. For others, it was more about improving the accuracy of assessments and more fully tailoring support to people’s needs.
However, other potential outcomes included promoting the independence of the person, reassuring family and/or saving money by being able to safely reduce staff contact. While these are all potentially important outcomes, the key issue is that they are all different – and it is unlikely that any one way of working could ever achieve so many different, potentially incompatible outcomes all at once. As a result, there is a clear risk that everyone involved would get frustrated, and the lack of a shared sense of what success would look like means that meaningful evaluation is impossible.
Beyond this initial issue, there were a number of factors which made the decision-making process more complicated. Social care doesn’t really have a structured approach to identifying, quality assuring and selecting new forms of technology, so individual authorities and providers could only find out about the possibilities through more informal means, such as word of mouth, conferences, and even ‘sales pitches’ from technology providers. In some situations it was also unclear whether they were purchasing a finished product that had been successfully used elsewhere, or a new technology at an earlier stage of development, in which social care and the technology innovator were sharing potential risks and benefits. Although sites tried to involve a wide range of people in decision-making, it was often the case that people who draw on care and support, carers and front-line staff felt they had not been involved early enough in the process – and would have welcomed involvement from the outset.
As they moved to implement, our case study sites experienced a number of practical difficulties, including various technical problems in obtaining enough stable data over time. There were also more difficulties than sites had anticipated in installing/moving sensors, in making sure the right technical support was in place and in providing sufficient training, in ways that were tailored to the right audiences. Thinking through issues of capacity and consent could be complex, as were the ethical issues involved in collecting such potentially large amounts of data about people’s lives – especially in situations where someone might have dementia and might forget that the technology was installed in their homes. Above all, care staff sometimes felt worried about who was responsible for interpreting the data and it was difficult to embed a more preventative way of working in a system which is often very crisis-focused and episodic.
Learning from others
With the possible exception of the latter two issues, this picture is very similar to previous research into the implementation of technology – and sites seem to have experienced a number of common challenges and potential pitfalls. In addition to the overall research report, therefore, we have turned our findings into a short online guide – ‘If I knew then what I know now…’ – designed as a checklist or aide-memoire for other councils and providers to use when exploring the potential for new technology.
To share this as widely as possible, the guide is co-badged with Digital Social Care and NHS England, and was launched at a free roundtable on the future of care technology, organised by Digital Social Care, the National Care Forum, Skills for Care and others.
In one sense, the guide is very basic – but it takes people through some key questions in terms of:
- Agreeing what problem you are trying to solve via new technology, so that everyone involved is clear on what we’re trying to achieve and so that the pilot project is consistent with broader strategy.
- Choosing well, by being more transparent and structured when scoping the market, understanding the risks, paying attention to issues of equality, diversity and inclusion, and assessing the readiness of your digital infrastructure.
- Putting it into practice, involving all the key people throughout, placing significant emphasis on communication and training, working with the cultural issues that are raised by new ways of working and being clear how you will use the data that are generated/who is responsible for what.
- Learning what works, by building in evaluation from the start, being clear on how you will respond if things don’t go as planned, and thinking through what you will do next after the initial pilot.
Looking forwards
Hopefully if we work through some of these questions and prompts, then future projects will avoid some of the common issues which typically bedevil technology projects – ensuring that we have technology that works for us, has everyone on board and helps us deliver better outcomes for everyone involved.
Findings from the project have been turned into a practical guide to help councils and care providers who are thinking about implementing new technology in future. For further details, visit the project page.
Acknowledgements
This article was first produced for Care Management Matters. Together with Ian Litchfield, Sarah Parkinson, Lucy Hocking, Denise Tanner, Bridget Roe and Jennifer Bousfield, Jon is the author of a recent research report on use of AI in adult social care, funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and conducted by the BRACE rapid evaluation centre.