The Language of Telecare

I feel much more closely aligned with what Guy is saying. Vital signs monitoring cannot really be described as AT unless it is informing an individual , or their 'carers', about the appropriateness of their current actions/situation in real-time.

If it is not augmenting a reduced functional ability, or replacing an ability that has been lost, or never existed, then it is not AT. Simple!

Looking across a range of government documents, telecare is seen as sitting within the 'AT spectrum', which is recognised to range from grab rails to smart homes. (Section10, 'Housing, Health and Care', in Lifetime Homes Lifetime Neighbourhoods, April 2009, for example). What function(s) the technology performs and for whom the function is performed are critical questions in determining the correct terminology, from what I can see.

In the brave new world that Kevin envisions these conjectured PEAs will probably be capable of simultaneously straddling many of the terms previously described. It will be the functions that they perform and for whom that will determine which are appropriate to apply. The correct application of terms will be even more critical then than even now, as it will be harder to differentiate which services, service providers, budgets and protocols will be applicable to creating the correct package of support/care (the three Rs; rights, responsibilities and resources). Language is key to all communication AND action. Let's get back to basic and get it right.

Jeremy Linskell