Background: Assistive technology and telecare have been promoted to manage the risks associated with independent living for people with dementia, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness.Objectives: This trial aimed to establish whether or not assistive technology and telecare assessments and interventions extend the time that people with dementia can continue to live independently at home and whether or not they are cost-effective. Caregiver burden, the quality of life of caregivers and of people with dementia and whether or not assistive technology and telecare reduce safety risks were also investigated.Design: This was a pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Blinding was not undertaken as it was not feasible to do so. All consenting participants were included in an intention-to-treat analysis.Setting: This trial was set in 12 councils in England with adult social services responsibilities.Participants: Participants were people with dementia living in the community who had an identified need that might benefit from assistive technology and telecare.Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive either assistive technology and telecare recommended by a health or social care professional to meet their assessed needs (a full assistive technology and telecare package) or a pendant alarm, non-monitored smoke and carbon monoxide detectors and a key safe (a basic assistive technology and telecare package).Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes were time to admission to care and cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes assessed caregivers using the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale, the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory 6-item scale and the Zarit Burden Interview.Results: Of 495 participants, 248 were randomised to receive full assistive technology and telecare and 247 received the limited control. Comparing the assistive technology and telecare group with the control group, the hazard ratio for institutionalisation was 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.01;p = 0.054). After adjusting for an imbalance in the baseline activities of daily living score between trial arms, the hazard ratio was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.12;p = 0.20). At 104 weeks, there were no significant differences between groups in health and social care resource use costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£909, 95% confidence interval –£5336 to £3345) or in societal costs (intervention group – control group difference: mean –£3545; 95% confidence interval –£13,914 to £6581). At 104 weeks, based on quality-adjusted life-years derived from the participant-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire, the intervention group had 0.105 (95% confidence interval –0.204 to –0.007) fewer quality-adjusted life-years than the control group. The number of quality-adjusted life-years derived from the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire did not differ between groups. Caregiver outcomes did not differ between groups over 24 weeks.Limitations: Compliance with the assigned trial arm was variable, as was the quality of assistive technology and telecare needs assessments. Attrition from assessments led to data loss additional to that attributable to care home admission and censoring events.Conclusions: A full package of assistive technology and telecare did not increase the length of time that participants with dementia remained in the community, and nor did it decrease caregiver burden, depression or anxiety, relative to a basic package of assistive technology and telecare. Use of the full assistive technology and telecare package did not increase participants’ health and social care or societal costs. Quality-adjusted life-years based on participants’ EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire responses were reduced in the intervention group compared with the control group; groups did not differ in the number of quality-adjusted life-years based on the proxy-rated EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire.Future work: Future work could examine whether or not improved assessment that is more personalised to an individual is beneficial.Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86537017.Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The use of assistive technology and telecare (ATT) has been promoted to manage risks associated with independent living in people with dementia but with little evidence for effectiveness. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an ATT assessment followed by installation of all appropriate ATT devices or limited control of appropriate ATT. The primary outcomes were time to institutionalisation and cost-effectiveness. Key secondary outcomes were number of incidents involving risks to safety, burden and stress in family caregivers and quality of life. Participants were assigned to receive full ATT (248 participants) or the limited control (247 participants). After adjusting for baseline imbalance of activities of daily living score, HR for median pre-institutionalisation survival was 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; P = 0.20. There were no significant differences between arms in health and social care (mean -£909; 95% CI, -£5,336 to £3,345, P = 0.678) and societal costs (mean -£3,545; 95% CI, -£13,914 to £6,581, P = 0.499). ATT group members had reduced participant-rated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at 104 weeks (mean − 0.105; 95% CI, −0.204 to −0.007, P = 0.037) but did not differ in QALYs derived from proxy-reported EQ-5D. Fidelity of the intervention was low in terms of matching ATT assessment, recommendations and installation. This, however, reflects current practice within adult social care in England. Time living independently outside a care home was not significantly longer in participants who received full ATT and ATT was not cost-effective. Participants with full ATT attained fewer QALYs based on participant-reported EQ-5D than controls at 104 weeks.

Direct payments – cash for people eligible for adult social care and spent by them on care and support – are claimed to enable care to better reflect user preferences and goals which improve outcomes. This paper compares outcomes of older direct payment users and those receiving care via a managed personal budget (where the budget is spent on the recipients behalf by a third party). The study adopted a retrospective, comparative design using a postal questionnaire in three English councils with adult social care responsibilities in 2012–13. Included in the study were 1,341 budget users aged 75+, living in ordinary community settings. The overall response rate was 27.1 per cent (339 respondents). Three validated scales measured outcomes: EQ-5D-3L (health status), the Sheldon–Cohen Perceived Stress Scale and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (social care-related quality of life). The study found that direct payment users appreciated the control conferred by budget ownership, but in practice, for many it did not ‘translate’ into improved living arrangements. It also found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between direct payment and managed personal budget users. The paper argues that despite policy and other guidance and research evidence about effective implementation of direct payments for older people, the absence of evidence for better outcomes may at least in part be attributable to values underpinning policies relating to personalisation and personal budgets.

The Westminster government in the UK remains keen to promote the use of personal budgets (PBs) in social care, as it believes these confer choice, empower the budget holder, and lead to greater levels of personalisation and better outcomes. This paper considers the costs and benefits of PBs—to local authority Social Services Departments, and to people using PBs, respectively—in a single English local authority setting. A comparative design was used to collect data from a large sample of ‘traditional’ social services users and a cohort of people who were using PBs as Direct Payments. Benefits relative to costs were compared using a statistical technique known as ‘bootstrapping’. The authors found that, compared to younger adults, older people did not greatly benefit from possessing a budget on the outcome measures used, but costs were higher for budget holders across all care groups. These findings support evidence from an earlier study (Glendinning et al., 2008) and raise important questions about the suitability of PBs as a means of achieving personalised services for older people and the implications for social work practice.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to define current assistive technology and telecare (ATT) practice for people with dementia living at home. Methods: This is a randomized controlled trial (N = 495) of ATT assessment and ATT installation intervention, compared with control (restricted ATT package). ATT assessment and installation data were collected. Qualitative work identified value networks delivering ATT, established an ATT assessment standard. Results: ATT was delivered by public and not‐for‐profit telecare networks. ATT assessments showed 52% fidelity to the ATT assessment standard. Areas of assessment most frequently leading to identifying ATT need were daily activities (93%), memory (89%), and problem‐solving (83%). ATT needs and recommendations were weakly correlated (τ = 0.242; P < .000), with ATT recommendations and installations moderately correlated (τ = −0.470; P < .000). Half (53%) of recommended technology was not installed. Safety concerns motivated 38% of installations. Discussion: Assessment recommendations were routinely disregarded at the point of installation. ATT was commonly recommended for safety and seldom for supporting leisure.

Self-neglect and hoarding are behaviours that are hard to define, measure and address. They are more prevalent among older people because of bio-psycho-social factors, which may be exacerbated by advancing age. This paper aims to further understandings of self-neglect and hoarding in England's Care Act 2014 context, drawing on a study involving qualitative interviews with local authority adult safeguarding managers who play an important role in determining interventions with individuals who self-neglect and/or hoard. Online interviews were conducted with adult safeguarding leads and managers from 31 English local authorities in 2021. Interview data were subject to thematic analysis. This paper explores the commonalities and differences in adult safeguarding managers' understandings of the causes and consequences of self-neglect and/or hoarding among older people, which are likely to have tangible impacts on service provision in their local authority, and influencing of wider changes to policies and procedures. Most participants understood these phenomena as caused by a range of bio-psycho-social factors, including chronic physical conditions, bereavement, isolation. A minority took a more clinical or psycho-medical perspective, focusing on mental ill-health, or referred to the social construction of norms of cleanliness and tidiness. Whatever their understanding, by the time such behaviours are brought to the attention of safeguarding professionals a crisis response may be all that is offered. The implications of the findings are that other agencies should be encouraged to provide more early help to older people at risk of self-neglect and/or of developing harmful hoarding behaviours, and that sustained engagement with those affected may help to understand some of the causes of these behaviours to enable effective support or practice interventions.