The Sino-smart Digital Technology vehicle and personal GPS tracker factory in China says on its website that it has the capacity to make up to 1000 of its latest Mini GPS tracker for iPhone per day if you wish, although pricing on 1-10 of them is just US $65.30 each, falling to US $49.90 for 501+. The features of the GT68 are:
- iPhone users can track multiple-objects simultaneously on one map with its G-tracker software
- It supports two-way voice communications like a mobile phone
- It can report its location to the server base or mobile phone at preset intervals
- You get a free account for online real-time tracking
Do your due diligence! Sino-smart website.
Unfortunately, the use of GPS devices for people who have cognitive impairments isn’t as simple as purchasing equipment for the lowest possible price. It’s more to do with the management of its use including battery charging, issues of wearability, and how to organise a service to bring someone back to a place of safety in the middle of the night. The recent Telecare EPG product comparison report (summary available free of charge at http://www.t-cubed.co.uk/assets/pdf/%28PGTR-002-SR%29%20GPS%20Locators%20Summary%20Report%20%281.0%29.pdf) describes the usability considerations and the limitations of devices and services.
Thanks for completing the item and for providing the link to such a useful report
@Kevin Doughty
Thanks for sharing that report. I’m surprised there is no mention of the potential risks of these devices directly causing harm to patients.
I mention this as I notice wrist worn devices in your report that have actually been recalled after inflicting serious injury on patients.
I hope this is explained in the full report (that I don’t have access to as I’m not a license holder/local authority)
Wearability involves the ease of putting on and taking off a device, the aesthetic appeal and general issues of safety. I can confirm that none of the volunteers who wore the devices tested during this 3 month study were harmed in any way despite using them under some extreme environments. However, the report makes clear that people who have a cognitive impairment are likely to lack insight and might therefore engage in risky behaviour that cannot be predicted. A full assessment of risks is recommended before prescribing any device as there is no such thing as an inherently safe product where service users lack the capacity to understand the purpose and operation of devices.
One of the devices studied in this work is designed to be worn around the neck on a lanyard. It presents the same risks of choking and strangulation as other panic pendant devices, especially when worn by vulnerable people; but it could be argued that the overall risk of harm is reduced by having these devices available within a telecare system. The assessors and prescribers must make and document the hard decisions (preferably using standard risk assessment methods)but can be helped through access to published research.
@ David Doherty
David, you mentioned wrist worn devices that have ‘inflicted serious injuries’ can you provide any evidence?
Yet again form-factor seems to be the Cinderella function of product development in telecare!
I think that Comparison Reports need to consider issues of risk and safety to the user, the carer and to anyone else in the Telecare team. However, unless there has been a formal product recall then it would be wrong to over-emphasise such issues. Having read the full report, I believe that the authors have struck a good balance in making readers aware of the roles of the assessor and the prescribers in selecting the most appropriate and cost-effective product.
I look forward to reading future comparison reports and hope that T-Cubed continue to address areas where there is currently poor prescribing and where devices sit on shelves because they don’t quite do what they say on the packet. It must be evident that there’s a lot more to telecare than simply buying low-cost items from China!