Study reveals "true benefits" of lone worker solutions for healthcare sector

The Royal College of Nursing's latest survey has uncovered the true benefits of lone worker devices to healthcare employees, many of whom are often required to work alone or in remote areas

According to the RCN’s survey, more than 60% of community nurses spend more than half of their time as a lone worker without immediate access to a colleague for support.

Over 70% reported having been subjected to either physical or verbal abuse during the course of their jobs in the past two years, with many agreeing that the risk they face has increased (largely due to the increased expectations of patients, their relatives and carers).

Thankfully, the use of lone worker devices by many NHS Trusts and private healthcare firms is helping to alleviate this situation.

Working alongside their clients in the healthcare sector, several members of the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) have developed highly effective lone worker devices equipped with GSM (mobile phone) technology to connect employees quickly and discreetly with an emergency response system that has direct links to the police.

In fact, a number of products are now commercially available from BSIA member companies (including the device used largely across the NHS and which is styled like an ID card holder).

Summoning help when required

Monitored by an Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC), lone worker devices allow users to send a pre-activation message when they are entering an area of potential risk (for example, a dark car park).

If the end user experiences a problem or encounters a situation that seems likely to escalate into something more serious then the lone worker device can be activated to summon help.

Activating the lone worker device automatically triggers a voice call to the ARC. No further action is required by the user, as the device effectively functions as an open microphone, enabling the ARC to capture an audio recording of the incident for future action such as police investigation of legal proceedings.

Operators at the ARC also monitor the audio channel in real-time, enabling them to assess the situation and alert the police if the user needs help or protection. This procedure allows the police to optimise their response to genuine emergencies by providing a ‘moving picture’ of the incident, including an increase or decrease in risk as it happens.

The very knowledge that this is taking place is, of course, a major boost to the user’s confidence. Over 40% of respondents to the RCN’s survey agreed that the use of a lone worker device would increase their confidence to work alone.

BSIA Lone Worker Steering Group

The BSIA operates a dedicated Lone Worker Steering Group which was instrumental in the creation of British Standard BS 8484 – a crucial consideration for anyone purchasing lone worker devices – and has also published two downloadable guides providing both employers and lone workers themselves with easy-to-follow advice.

‘Lone Workers – An Employer’s Guide’ informs employers about and what to look for when sourcing a supplier. The guide covers the employers’ responsibilities to its lone workers, as well as specific criteria for selecting technology, monitoring services and providers (including the possession of quality management systems such as ISO 9001 and the delivery of appropriate training).

For employees whose role requires them to work alone, the BSIA has produced a separate guide entitled: ‘Lone Workers – An Employee’s Guide’.

James Kelly, chief executive of the BSIA, explained: "These guides recognise the importance of keeping lone workers safe and secure. Responsible employers will consider the Health and Safety of their lone workers as a top priority."

Kelly added: "The use of lone worker devices can help by connecting such employees with an emergency response system that has direct links to the police. British Standard BS 8484 is the basis on which the police respond to lone worker systems, so it's important for employers to choose a supplier who works to these standards."

To find out more about the BSIA and the work of its members, or to find a reputable supplier of lone worker devices near you, visit the Association’s website.

(Original article: http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=9&storycode=4128567)

Why telehealth will transform care of Kent’s patients

Locally, we have already seen what a dramatic effect telecare and telehealth can have on the daily life and wellbeing of people with long-term health problems after it was introduced by the primary care trusts in Kent and Kent County Council seven years ago.

Take, for instance, Haris Patel, 54, from Folkestone whose health conditions include problems caused by hardening of the arteries.

He said: “Before I had telehealth, I used to spend 10 months of each year in hospital. Since I got it, I have been in for two weeks in the last three years, and that was planned. Telehealth gives me peace of mind.”

Now the Department of Health is so impressed with the results of the Whole System Demonstrator Programme, which tested the technology in Kent, Cornwall and Newham, that it is championing its use nationwide.

The project found there was a 45 per cent reduction in deaths among patients taking part, a 15 per cent drop in attendance at A&E, and 20 per cent fewer emergency admissions to hospital.

Care services minister Paul Burstow said: “People were absolutely clear that high-tech healthcare has improved their lives for the better.

“I want to see more people across the country benefit. That is why we are working with industry, the NHS and councils to change the lives of three million people across England over the next five years.”

So what is this technology? Telecare, introduced in Kent in 2004, offers remote monitoring of people’s safety. Available to vulnerable people, who meet specific criteria, it consists of sensors that can be worn (such as a falls monitor on the belt) or placed in the home (such as a flood alarm if someone might not remember to turn off the taps).

Sensors are connected to a 24-hour monitoring centre which contacts the person and raises the alarm if there is a problem.

Telehealth, which enables remote monitoring of people’s health, is even more innovative.

Available in Kent since 2005, it offers suitable patients with conditions such as diabetes, lung disease and heart disease, the chance to measure their pulse, blood pressure, blood glucose, blood oxygen level, peak flow (lung capacity), temperature and weight, all at home.

Their community matron from Kent Community Health NHS Trust, or specialist nurse, monitors their readings from day to day, picking up subtle changes in their health before they develop into something more serious.

This helps people stay well – as does the power it gives them over their lives. People get to ‘know their numbers’ and understand the impact their day- to-day life has on their health, so they can spot when things are deteriorating and take action.

It has been such a success that the technology is no longer just a pilot – it is being rolled out across Kent and Medway and will be available as part of the care package for those who are eligible.

This is a wonderful example of what the NHS and social care can achieve by working closely together to improve the quality of life for local people.

(Original article: http://www.yourcanterbury.co.uk/blogs/why_telehealth_will_transform_care_of_kent_s_patients_1_1176973)

Is it time to change the name ‘Lone Worker’?

BS8484 was deliberately produced early on in the development of the Lone Worker Protection market with the intention of imposing controls on false alarm rates from an early stage.

While this has been shown to be a real benefit, with a very low rate of false alarms and therefore a high level of police support, it can expose other problems which were not foreseen with little market experience.  One of these is the name ‘Lone Worker’.

While the name did not get a mention in Health & Safety legislation it is there that we find its roots. The HSE were using the term at an early stage and it served its purpose well by highlighting the vulnerability of a specific employment group which signalled the birth of the Lone Worker market.

The Police were clearly going to be a most significant element in the market, as the primary response service, and they liked the name for two reasons:

Restricting it to employees only gave a degree of built-in control against false alarms because;

1. There was a mechanism to control bad practice and therefore reduce false alarms
2. Services would only be purchased and used in response to a specific threat identified through a formal risk assessment process
3. There would be training – both on using the device/service and on the avoidance and management of potentially dangerous situations
4. The term Lone Worker effectively excludes ‘consumers’ who are by definition beyond organisational control and who would probably purchase such devices and services for more general and unspecified risk to elderly relatives and young children or teenagers.  The fear was that without the discipline of the corporate environment, including training and control over their use, many more false alarms would be created.

However, while the term has been instrumental in mobilising the market it also confuses many who are not familiar with it.  It does not immediately conjure up an image of many of those vulnerable people to whom it in fact applies.  To the initiated it implies someone whose job is essentially solitary and risky because there are no other people around them; perhaps a distant figure toiling in the field vulnerable to accident or sudden illness.  Not many organisations have such people so why should they be interested?

While this remains a possible use the most likely situations are those where there is a threat because they are not alone; that there are one or more others present who could represent a threat to them.   The term ‘Lone’ therefore has come to mean someone who is not actually alone but is ‘Lone’ in the sense of having no co-workers to come to their immediate aid if required.

Also, as various organisations have discovered the flexibility of such services and how they could be applied to all sorts of people and situations, so the term Lone Worker has become further muddled.

For example several police forces that have responsibility for the protection of high risk domestic violence victims use Lone Worker services to allow them to call for help if they need to.  By no stretch of the imagination can such people be described as Lone Workers yet Lone Worker services have, in such circumstances, saved lives, saved serious injury and put violent offenders behind bars.   While they are not Lone
Workers these are certainly ‘vulnerable people’ and perhaps this would be a more accurate description?

They are also clearly at risk and maybe this would be an even better description – ‘People at Risk’?  It has the clear advantage of relating to risk which would perhaps focus people on that key word as an essential precursor to buying.

Words with imprecise meanings create false images in people’s minds.   It is quite possible that the images conjured up by the term ‘Lone Worker’ in the minds of those hearing it for the first time, without the benefit of a full explanation, are something of
a turn-off.

It is also quite possible, even probable, that this lack of precision has contributed to confusion and consequent slow development in the market.

If this is so it will, more importantly, have failed to reduce vulnerability for some ‘People at Risk’.

(source: http://www.bs8484.com/v2/2011/12/is-it-time-to-change-the-name-%E2%80%98lone-worker%E2%80%99/)