Questions raised on what the technology would be used to understand the actual impact on people – outcomes as a result could be positive or negative. Social workers will review on a case-by-case basis and undertake a risk assessment approach to identify appropriate technology for each individual’s needs

Opportunities for shared accommodation could provide support for those who are less experienced in technology, and sharing a responder can maximise opportunities

Some systems will support people to be more connected to their friends and family

Where it is appropriate it might be better in a semi-rural area, alternative that is a good fit and connects people

Areas where difficult to staff a service technology can better support people to fill that gap

Promoting technology can improve equity of access to digital innovations, and provides opportunities to have greater levels of independence in own homes

If you match people well in shared accommodation, you can foster good relations within and between people who share protected characteristics

Initial transition might go well, but longer term can deteriorate and become more costly, how do we factor those things in? Carefully consider background, history, the need for change, and the match of those sharing space – effective post-deployment review processes

How is assessment criteria to be maximised? For some people who receive support during the night that might be only person they see – how to protect mental health for those groups of people, and how fast can we respond to people so no one is at risk – be clear this is not just a cost-saving exercise

Robust and thorough multiagency review is completed on a case-by-case basis

Promoting greater control

Assessment to be fully inclusive of person and advocate to ensure all personal views considered

Independence increased – challenge with assessment is people have become used to a person being there, we need to manage the transitional arrangements well through this process, control over decision and change in relationship

Some people will welcome not having the presence of someone there, and the control over their lives that they get from releasing that presence

Recommendation – managing the transition carefully, supporting them on that journey to adjust and take control of their rights

Technology can accurately record the level of contact, and could provide additional information to reassure family that people are cared for and supported overnight, and if needs are changing would provide a picture of that

All

All

Living in rural areas

All

Resource and financial crunch, agree we have to look at things to be more efficient and effective – but whatever is offered should be as good as whatever they have

Risk of technology failure – what is reasonably practical and our risk tolerance in the assessment of need throughout this process

Whilst some will adapt well, others will struggle to adapt to significant changes that technology can bring – older adults at increased risk

For older adults, assessment on technology has to be very thorough and include consideration of cognition as well as social care need – need to ensure that cognitively someone is able to manage safely with tech

For people with autism, significant changes to care packages could lead to deterioration and any change would have to be very carefully considered

Potential for changing needs – regular reviews will be required

Families who have previously cared for people, might think the new support arrangements are riskier

Older carers – someone in the house to support can be a preferred option rather than technology

Non-English speaking or non-verbal communication style – need to be aware of any technology that requires spoken instructions

Some people might feel that technology is an intrusion in their home, and others may be suspicious of monitoring from government. This can include paranoia for those with a psychotic illness, or paranoia of government for groups including asylum seekers. Will require robust multidisciplinary support and assessment for anyone who might feel they are being surveilled

Legalities – courts can be quite reluctant to approve any technology that is linked to electronic monitoring of people under guardianship

PTSD – any known trauma history, might impact response and fear on technology and devices, to include as part of MDT assessment

Change in care arrangements e.g. 1:1 to shared carers – look at the abilities and attributes of the other person, and a fit for how those people can safely share – one person might be more adept with technology which could help someone who is not (positive), but also negative considerations like protected characteristics that won’t fit well for some people and leave some unsafe

People who are in transient groups who may have limited ability to make adaptations to their home

Vulnerable families and those experiencing domestic abuse – preventing access to devices or fear of access to devices – part of robust risk assessment on the technology, who can access it and be clear that it cannot be accessed by others

Value of technology – stolen or sold

More isolated people less able to use technology as less likely to have a concentration of people to share and use support

Impact of people who are vulnerable and it becomes known that they are on their own at night – info getting to the wrong people

To include in risk assessment, how are people monitored and supported overnight, how far from physical staff are they?

Older adults

People with autism

Families

Carers

Non-English speaking

Asylum seekers

People with PTSD

Transient groups

Vulnerable families

Staff may be required to travel less where technology enabled care can better support individuals at home.

Resource efficiency – financial resources will be reduced and utilised more efficiently

Telecare could increase safety for people in their homes, including tech related safety features

Financial resources of EHSCP

People who use our services

Counter to the point above, staff who would usually go directly onto a sleepover shift will now need to travel home in the evening.

Lone workers – if not going to a sleepover staff may now have to travel on public transport later at night once shift ends

Staff

Improved access to services and digital infrastructure for individuals and their families

Could improve working environments by increasing rest periods between shifts and for those that do not want to do night shifts

People who use our services and their family

Staff

Cost of living – staff travelling more and with less shift opportunity to boost income. Lower income staff will loose the opportunity for additional income provided from overnight shifts, and this could cause some recruitment and retention issues.

There may be a requirement for some contribution to technology cost from services users, any re-assessment of need would have to have an income maximisation component e.g. line rental and internet provision – will have to consider who pays the bill for tech especially as reducing cost via staff

Staff (predominantly female)

People who use our services