Innovative Practice

Abstract

A case study in the use of technology to reassure and support a person with dementiaIn keeping with the assistive technologies theme in the rest of this issue, the first article in the Innovative Practice section is a case study dealing with the way in which one family used interactive computer technologies to deal with the very real problems that some carers experience when the person for whom they care telephones them during the night because they need reassurance and are unsure what time it is. John Baruch is Head of the Department of Cybernetics, Internet and Virtual Systems at the University of Bradford and Murna Downs, Errollyn Bruce and Clive Baldwin are members of the Bradford Dementia Group. Although their case study indicates the scope for new technologies to improve the quality of life for people with dementia, especially those who live on their own, it is firmly grounded in the principles of person-centred care and the need to find solutions that are in keeping with the preferences of the person with dementia.The second and third articles both deal with intervention programmes for staff. The first looks at the detection and management of abuse and is by Barbora Richardson, Ginnette Kitchen and Gill Livingston. Sadly, since undertaking this research Barbora Richardson has died and so this article de men tia d e m e n t i a ©    www.sagepublications.com  () -

Technologies to Support Community-Dwelling Persons With Dementia: A Position Paper on Issues Regarding Development, Usability, Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness, Deployment, and Ethics

“…One large controlled study [15] concluded that smart home technologies helped persons with dementia by improving confidence, ability to maintain community living for a longer time, and reducing need for care visits. A single case study found a reduction in required support, perceived anxiety, and confusion by the person with dementia [116]. Comparison of the use of video conferences for, for example, clinical assessment showed no differences compared with face-to-face assessments [117-119].…”