charge on top of the $2400-$3000/month living fee ‘elderly abuse’ and considering legal action. Article.
Why would the introduction of a well-regarded remote sensor monitoring system, particularly one in market as long as QuietCare has been, engender this unprecedented upset?
QuietCare has had five years of successful introductions–and where it wasn’t, there were clear reasons why, generally concerning failure to secure resident and staff buy-in. [Ed. Donna: I headed marketing for the developers of QuietCare, Living Independently Group, 2006-9] Here, evidently someone forgot the obvious–you actually need to market the system to the residents and the families paying for it.
- $200/month is not only a steep charge, it’s one with a hefty markup–according to the Fort Pierce article, GE stated its monthly cost is about $90. Residents are on fixed incomes that have declined with interest rates, families can’t fill the gap. While equipment has to be paid for over time in addition to monthly monitoring fees, a 100% markup is an easy target for anger.
- It’s presented as a separate and new charge, across most if not all levels of care. This may be because of the contract, the belief that the system truly benefits all–and also, once installed, the ‘standard of care’ is established. Opt-outs then become a liability issue. But these are explainable points and liability can be managed, as it is every day in these settings.
- Residents and families were notified by letter rather than by family meetings held later–which turned into flak-catching sessions, preventing a reasonable discussion of (1) and (2).
Laurie Orlov’s Aging in Place Technology blog has substantial, broader commentary here, starting with comments on an earlier posting about QuietCare’s acquisition by GE. Based on some of the comments, it also seems that internal marketing to the staff–the faces residents see and trust every day, and who are the ones taking action on QuietCare data–was also forgotten in the rush to deploy.
No one seems to dispute that the system works in maintaining a better level of resident health, helping to prevent falls and to lengthen stay in AL. Yet here is an effective technology, undermined by its ineffective introduction in at least several of the SLC communities.
What does this teach other eHealth providers trying to enter the IL/AL market? What would you do, especially if your technology is a per-month expense?
Can our UK readers suggest how, with their longer experience, they would have approached getting buy-in from the residents–and staff?