Search

This paper explores telecare manager and other 'stakeholder' perspectives on the nature, extent and impact of family and other unpaid/informal carers' involvement in the provision of telecare equipment and services for older people. Data used in the paper are derived from a larger study on telecare provision by local councils in England. The paper aims to add to the growing evidence about carers' engagement with electronic assistive technology and telecare, and considers this in the context of typologies of professionals' engagement with carers. How carers are involved in telecare provision is examined primarily from the perspectives of senior managers responsible for telecare services who responded to an online survey and/or were interviewed in 2016 as part of a wider study. The perspectives of three unpaid carers were captured in a separate strand of the main study, which comprised more detailed case study interviews within four selected councils. Thematic and comparative analysis of both qualitative and quantitative survey data revealed the varied involvements and responsibilities that carers assumed during the telecare provision process, the barriers that they needed to overcome and their integration in local council strategies. Findings are discussed in the context of Twigg and Atkin's typology of carer support. They suggest that carers are mainly perceived as 'resources' and involvement is largely taken for granted. There are instances in which carers can be seen as 'co-workers': this is mainly around responding to alerts generated by the telecare user or by monitored devices, but only in those councils that fund response services. Though some participants felt that telecare devices could replace or 'supersede' hands-on care that involved routine monitoring of health and wellbeing, it was also acknowledged that its use might also place new responsibilities on carers. Furthermore, the study found that meeting carers' own rights as 'co-clients' was little acknowledged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Two to 4% of emergency hospital admissions are caused by preventable adverse drug events. The estimated costs of such avoidable admissions in England were £530 million in 2015. The data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention was designed to prompt review of patients vulnerable from currently prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and anti-platelets and was found to be effective at reducing this prescribing. A process evaluation was conducted parallel to the trial, and this paper reports the analysis which aimed to explore response to the intervention delivered to clusters in relation to participants' perceptions about which intervention elements were active in changing their practice.Methods: Data generation was by in-depth interview with key staff exploring participant's perceptions of the intervention components. Analysis was iterative using the framework technique and drawing on normalisation process theory.Results: All the primary components of the intervention were perceived as active, but at different stages of implementation: financial incentives primarily supported recruitment; education motivated the GPs to initiate implementation; the informatics tool facilitated sustained implementation. Participants perceived the primary components as interdependent. Intervention subcomponents also varied in whether and when they were active. For example, run charts providing feedback of change in prescribing over time were ignored in the informatics tool, but were motivating in some practices in the regular e-mailed newsletter. The high-risk NSAID and anti-platelet prescribing targeted was accepted as important by all interviewees, and this shared understanding was a key wider context underlying intervention effectiveness.Conclusions: This was a novel use of process evaluation data which examined whether and how the individual intervention components were effective from the perspective of the professionals delivering changed care to patients. These findings are important for reproducibility and roll-out of the intervention.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01425502 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]