Integrating Personal Emergency Response Systems (PERS) into Healthcare Professional Practices: A Scoping Review

Chang, Fangyuan; Kuoppamäki, Sanna; Östlund, Britt

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-50249-2_3

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, of those waivers that did provide PERS, only 42% of services included training for people with IDD and/or caregivers about the use of PERS. While PERS are generally easy to use, training can be important for successful implementation and use (Agboola et al, 2017; Chang et al, 2020; McLean, 2016; Stokke, 2016). For example, research indicates some older adults with access to PERS do not activate their devices during emergencies (Johnston et al, 2010; Rana, 2016; Stokke, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, extended periods of time spent lying on the ground after falls often lead to poor outcomes, including serious injuries and emergency department visits (Bloch et al, 2017; De San Miguel et al, 2015; Johnston et al, 2010). Although PERS were originally designed to assist people after falls, because of the ease of use—they are designed with the needs of people with fewer technology skills in mind—their use has since expanded to other physical and mental emergencies (Agboola et al, 2017; Andrew et al, 2021; Chang et al, 2020; McLean, 2016; Young et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, research has found that older adults who use PERS have reduced length of stays in emergency departments than older adults not using PERS (McKenna et al, 2015; Ong et al, 2018). As a result, PERS offers users and their caregivers a reassuring sense of security and peace of mind (Agboola et al, 2017; Andrew et al, 2021; Bloch et al, 2017; Chang et al, 2020; Dahl et al, 2016; De San Miguel et al, 2015; Heinbüchner et al, 2010; McKenna et al, 2015;McLean, 2016; Rana, 2016; Stokke, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another benefit of PERS is independence, community living, and the facilitation of aging in place (Andrew et al, 2021; Chang et al, 2020; Heinbüchner et al, 2010; Lee et al, 2007; McKenna et al, 2015; McLean, 2016; Ong et al, 2018; Rana, 2016; Stokke, 2016). Risk of falls, as well as long lies after falls, are a cause of institutionalization (Bloch et al, 2017; De San Miguel et al, 2015; Ho et al, 2019; Johnston et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Personal emergency response systems and people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the United States

Friedman

2023

Policy Practice Intel Disabi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Personal Emergency Response Systems (PERS) are electronic medical alert devices that help people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) receive assistance in emergencies. According to research on older adults, PERS improve health outcomes, provide people with a sense of security and peace of mind, promote independence, and prevent institutionalization. The aim of this study was to examine if, and how, states provided PERS to people with IDD in their Medicaid Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) waiver programs in fiscal year (FY) 2021. To do so, we qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed HCBS data on participant services and cost‐neutrality demonstrations to examine thematic trends in how and why states offered PERS, as well as total unduplicated participants, total projected spending, projected spending per participant, reimbursement rates, and annual service provision per participant. In FY 2021, 42 waivers (39.25%) from 25 states and the District of Columbia (57.78%) projected spending $9.87 million on PERS services for 9538 people with IDD. PERS services included the installation of devices (77.78%), monthly service fees (73.61%), equipment maintenance (44.44%), and training of people with IDD or their caregivers about the equipment (41.67%). States said they provided PERS in order to prevent institutionalization (23.61%), promote independence (16.67%), and maximize mobility (11.11%). Given the potential benefits for independent living, independence, and reducing costs, as well as the disparities unearthed in this study, we believe states should expand how they provide PERS to people with IDD in HCBS and do so in a more consistent manner. This may be especially beneficial as PERS can be cost‐prohibitive for many people with IDD, who frequently live in poverty, and HCBS reimbursement for technology is the top barrier to implementing technology according to IDD providers.

show abstract