1 / 39

Effects of Currently Available Smart Home Technology on Frail Elders

Effects of Currently Available Smart Home Technology on Frail Elders. Machiko R. Tomita, Ph.D. Department of Rehabilitation Science University at Buffalo Presented at NYSOTA Conference Buffalo, NY, September 27-29, 2007. Rationale for the Study.

lalo
Download Presentation

Effects of Currently Available Smart Home Technology on Frail Elders

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Effects of Currently Available Smart Home Technology on Frail Elders Machiko R. Tomita, Ph.D. Department of Rehabilitation Science University at Buffalo Presented at NYSOTA Conference Buffalo, NY, September 27-29, 2007

  2. Rationale for the Study • Elders with disabilities are likely to experience functional limitations, dependence on caregivers, and depression, which could lead to institutionalization. • Smart Home utilizing a computer may improve safety to prevent falls and injury, enhancing mental and physical activities that can keep frail elders at home longer.

  3. SH for frail elderly in the world • SH technology (X10) was introduced in early 1980’s from Scotland. • In 2000, SmartBo used an intelligent building control system (European Installation Bus) that controlled all lighting, most electric power outlets, the motorized lock of the entrance door, and motorized blinds, curtains, and window openers. • When a person leaves the bed at night, dimmed lamps lighted the way from bedroom to bathroom. If the person does not return to bed after a pre-set time, the caregivers would then be alerted.

  4. SH for Frail Elderly in the US • Allegheny Hospital McKeesport Aging Project in Pennsylvania.

  5. Comprehensive Needs Assessments for SH

  6. Purpose of the Study • To conduct a two-year randomized controlled trial on sustainability of independent living at smart home among home-based older adults with chronic conditions.

  7. Model toward Optimal Management of Independence through Technological Adoption Social/Community Support T A & H E Physical Activities Personal Factors Independence (Living at Home) Cognitive Activities Psychological State Family and Friends

  8. Research Questions 1. Would frail elders accept the SH, if it is provided to them? 2. Do older adults using SH maintain physical function better than the control group? 3. Do the users of SH maintain cognitive function better than the control group? 4. Do the users of SH experience less depression than the control group? 5. What are subjective evaluations of SH by frail elders? 6. Is the rate of remaining at home for SH residents higher than the control group?

  9. Method: Design • Randomized Controlled Design Notation Initial 1 year 2 years R T O X O X O R C O O O Where R is randomization, T is treatment group, C is control group, O is observation (assessment), and X is intervention (SH)

  10. Method: Sampling • Older adults (60+) who live alone, have difficulty in IADL or ADL for 90 days, and are cognitively intact (MMSE>23), and intend to remain living in their own home. • Sample size: 90 (Based on power analysis) • Initially 46 Treatment and 67 Control • 2 years later 34 Treatment (26% attrition) and 44 Control (34% attrition)

  11. Instruments • X-10 ActiveHome kit and other modules

  12. Active Home Kit Includes: Two-Way Transceiver Module Lamp Module Interface 5-in-1 Remote Control

  13. Computer Operated Automated Functions

  14. Automated Lighting System

  15. Remote Control

  16. Coffee Maker Connected to X 10

  17. Door and Window Sensors

  18. Motion Sensor for windows and doors for security

  19. Alarm System Chime and Lighting

  20. Power flash to control lights and chimes

  21. Window Door Security X10 signal through existing wiring Computer ActiveHome Software Chime Module Interface Outlet Outlet Flash Unit Appliance Module Transceiver Module Wall Switch Lamp Module Coffee Maker Remote Control Radio Frequency Motion Sensor Lamp Lighting X10 devices used in the Study

  22. Procedure • A computer and/or Internet were provided, if not owned. • An OT or a nurse visited a participants home for a 2.5 hour assessment. • The initial installation, done by Jim, took three to nine hours depending on the size of the home.

  23. Training of Computer Use A computer should be running 24/7 for the automatic lighting features but the monitor can be turned off when it is not in use. Kathy visited participants an average of 5 times for training.

  24. Devices That Help Computer Access Keyboard Enlargement Tabs Trackball

  25. Instruments for Outcome Measurement • Functional Status • FIM for ADL, OAR’s IADL, CHART mobility • Cognitive Status • MMSE (Center for Functional Assessment Research,1990; Fillenbaum, 1988; Gilson, et al. 1975; Wolinsky, Callahan, Fitzgerald, & Johnson, 1993 Folstein, Folstein & McHugh, 1988)

  26. Results: Initial Demographics and Health Data of Participants who Survived for 2 Years T (n=34)C (n=44) • Age 72.0 75.6* • Gender (F) 30 (88.2%) 39 (88.6%) • Race (Minority) 10 (29.4%) 8 (18.2%) • Housing (Own) 19 (55.9%) 24 (54.5%) • Education (≤HS) 11 (29.4%) 26 (59.1%) • Diabetes 4 (11.8%) 14 (31.8%)* • Urinary tract d. 1 (2.9%) 9 (20.5%)*

  27. Results: RQ 1 - Would frail elders accept the SH, if it is provided to them? • 100% Computer • 65% Active Home software • 68% Remote control and chimes • 67% Wall switch • 62% Power flash for window/door security • 62% Lighting • 53% Motion detector • 52% Coffeemaker

  28. Results: RQ 2 - Do older adults using SH maintain physical function better than the control group?Physical Dysfunction Level (<.001)

  29. Results: RQ 2 - Do older adults using SH maintain physical function better than the control group?CHART Mobility (P<.001)

  30. Results: RQ3 - Do the users of SH maintain cognitive function better than the control group?FIM Cognition (p<.001)

  31. Results: RQ5 - What are subjective evaluations of SH by frail elders? • Importance of PC (Very Important): 26.5% (1st F. ) 82.4% (2nd F.) 84.6% Knowledge gain 71.8% More mental stimulus 59.0% Increased socialization 43.6% Better health and wellness

  32. Results: RQ5 - What are subjective evaluations of SH by frail elders? Not Some A Great Deal • Benefited from SH: 0 21% 77% • Improved daily life: 30% 20% 50% • Gained confidence 12% 35% 53% • Recommend to No Yes older adults 6% 91%

  33. Results: RQ5 - What are subjective evaluations of SH by frail elders? Reasons for recommend or not recommend Recommend (n=31, 28 answered) 50% Security, 28.6% Safety, 14.3% Easy access to lights, 2% comfort Not Recommend (n=8) Bad experience, Erratic, The system is not working, Not very reliable

  34. Results: RQ6 - Is the rate of remaining at home for SH residents higher than the control group? Treatment Control Initial 46 67 2 years later Still in the study 34 (73.9%) 44 (65.7%) Died 6 (13.0%) 6 (9.0%) Institutionalized 1 ( 2.2%) 3 (4.5%) Quit due to illness 3 ( 6.5%) 3 (4.5%) Phone Disconnected 0 10 (14.9%) P<.05

  35. Discussion • It is possible to create a SH for under $300, excluding the computer and labor. • The major problem was lighting, but if a person learns how to reset the timer on the computer, this became the most preferred feature for safety reasons and the reason for continuity of living at home. • SH/computer users maintained physical and cognitive functions over two years in contrast to a significant decline among nonusers. Although increased comorbidity usually translates to declines in motor function, for the treatment group, SH systems could have prevented falls and injuries, and allowed more independent daily activities. It is difficult to measure what was prevented by use of SH.

  36. Discussion • Finally, SH users continued living in their own home significantly more than nonusers (80% vs. 66%). SH may have prevented an injury and promoted an active life style. Psychologically, feeling secure also may have encouraged frail elders to continue living at home. Creating a SH needs skill, and living in a SH requires patience in learning how to operate SH technologies. Nevertheless, we conclude that retrofitting an older home with smart home technology can be an effective coping strategy for remaining in one’s own home, increasing quality of life for older adults with chronic conditions.

  37. Appendix • Detailed statements of installation, problems and solutions can be found in www.agingresearch.buffalo.edu • An example of SH technology was recreated in the basement of the Independent Living Center on Main Street in Western New York, near the South Campus of the University at Buffalo.

  38. “I like Smart House and only wish this place were larger so that I could take more advantage of it.”

  39. Crews for the study • Machiko R. Tomita • Kathy Stanton • William Mann • Jim Peron • Vidya Sundar • Akihiko D. Tomita • Mary Becker • Maria Castilone • Patty Jahn RERC-Technology for Successful Aging This project was funded by NIDRR, USDE

More Related