This paper summarizes a current study examining the availability, appropriateness and acceptability of a technologically dependable healthcare provision to both service users and staff. An interface between the Electronic Patient Record (EPR) and future home care technology (Telecare) is suggested in the form of a ‘technology prescription’. It is argued that appropriately prescribed technology will enable people to benefit from a modern, evidence-based service, which promotes a proactive means of addressing and preventing future health and care needs. The paper argues that technological innovations in care must not be perceived as a threat to the partnerships necessary in achieving maximum health gains, but rather be an aid to a patient centred clinical encounter.
Jones I R. Professional power and the need for health care. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.
2.
Smith R. The future of healthcare systems. British Medical Journal1997; 314 (7093):1495-1499.
3.
Department of Health. Information for health: an information strategy for the modern NHS 1998–2005. London: Department of Health, 1988.
4.
Department of Health. The NHS plan: a plan for investment; a plan for reform. London: The Stationery Office, 2000.
5.
Levy S, Bradley D, Morison M, Swanston M, Wilson S. Power as a concept in the evaluation of telehealth. In: Rushmer, R K et al. (eds), Organisation Development in Health Care: Strategic Issues in Health Care Management. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.
6.
Levison D J. Information, computers and clinical practice. Journal of the American Medical Association1983; 249 (5):607-609.
7.
Gorman P N. Information needs of physicians. Journal American Society for Information Science1995; 46 (10):729-736.
8.
Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D, Smith R. Evidence based medicine. British Medical Journal1995; 310:1085-1086.
9.
Purves I. Decision support in primary and secondary care interface. London: NHS Executive R&D, 1998.
10.
Roberts R. Information for evidence-based care. Oxford: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1999.
11.
Analysis. The £50 billion question. BBC Radio 4, 9 March 2000.
12.
Audit Commission. Setting the records straight [national report]. London: Audit Commission, 1995.
13.
NHS Executive. The HISS management of change: Removing the barriers for clinicians' acceptance of HISS. Winchester: Information Management Group of the NHS Executive, 1996.
14.
Appelby J, Walsh K, Ham C. Acting on evidence [research paper]. Birmingham: NHAT, 1995.
15.
Scottish Office. Taking action 1998–2002. Edinburgh: Management Executive, Computing and IT Strategy Division, 1998.
16.
Coiera E. Guide to medical informatics, the internet and telemedicine. London: Chapman & Hall, 1997.
17.
Bolton P, Gay R. Review of computer usage among RACGP members. Australian Family Physician1995; 24 (10):1882-1885.
18.
Smith R. What clinical information do doctors need?British Medical Journal1996; 313: 1062-1068.
19.
Richards H, Sullivan F, Mitchell E, Ross S. Computer use by general practitioners in Scotland. The British Journal of General Practice1998; 48 (433):1473-1476.
20.
Sullivan F, Mitchell E. Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care?British Medical Journal1995; 311: 848-852.
21.
Stuart G. House of Commons Hansard debates for 4 May 2000: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health: Telemedicine May 2000. Available at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmhansrd/cm000504/deb-text/00504-33.htm
22.
Panahi G R, Shahtahmasebi S. The implication of telemedicine for nursing. Professional Nurse1999; 14 (2): 835-838.
23.
Evaluating telehealth: the search for an ethical perspective. ETHICOMP 99; 1999 5–8 October; Rome, Italy.
24.
Chief Medical Officer. Telemedicine in Scotland: A strategy, May 2000. Available at http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/telemedicine/topics/strategy/strategy1.htm200012/05/00
25.
Williams G, Doughty K, Bradley A D. A system approach to achieving CareNet – an integrated and intelligent telecare system. IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine1998; 2 (1):1-9.
26.
Altschuld J, Witkin B. From needs assessment to action: transforming needs into solution strategies. London: Sage, 2000.
27.
Revie R, Berkowits S, Carter C, Ferguson C. Needs assessment. Washington: Taylor & Francis, 1996.
28.
Siden H. A qualitative approach to community and provider needs assessment in telehealth projects. Telemedicine Journal1998; 4 (3):225-235.
29.
Doolittle G, Cook D. Defining the needs of a telemedicine service. In: Wootton R, Craig J (ed). Introduction to Telemedicine. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 1999, pp. 79-92.
30.
World Organization of Family Doctors. Using information technology to improve rural health care. Melbourne, Australia: WOFD, 1998.
31.
Sixsmith A, Sixsmith J. Smart care technologies: meeting whos need?Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare2000; 6(Supplement 1): 190-192.
32.
Bradley D, Levy S, Brownsell S. From caring home to smart house. New Technology in the Human Services2001; 14(1/2):18-28.
33.
Brownsell S, Williams G, Bradley D, Bragg R, Catlin P, Carlier J. Future systems for remote health care. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare1999; 5 (3):141-152.
34.
MacNaughtan D. The role of technology in the care of people with dementia in the community. Stirling: University of Stirling, 1997.
