Facial recognition lock technology for social care settings: A qualitative evaluation of implementation of facial recognition locks at two residential care sites.
access
care home
facial recognition
facial recognition technology
innovation
safety
security
social care
Journal
Frontiers in digital health
ISSN: 2673-253X
Titre abrégé: Front Digit Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101771889
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
10
10
2022
accepted:
26
01
2023
entrez:
20
3
2023
pubmed:
21
3
2023
medline:
21
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is limited literature on security and access for social care settings despite policy highlighting importance, and no published research exploring facial recognition lock technology (FRLT) for potential improvements. This study explored FRLT device implementation, use, barriers and benefits. One residential care home with 43 older adults and 68 staff members (Site A), and one supported living facility caring for six individuals with mental health issues with 18 staff members (Site B) were provided with FRLT for six months. Nine pre-implementation staff interviews explored existing access and security perceptions. Ten post-implementation staff interviews and one staff focus group were conducted; all were analysed using content analysis to understand, alongside process mapping, the use and impact of the FRLT. Interview participants included site care staff and other visiting healthcare professionals. We additionally report feedback from the technology developers to demonstrate impact of industry-academia collaboration. Pre-implementation interviews highlighted issues with current pin-pad or lock-box systems, including; code sharing; code visibility, ineffective code changes, security issues following high staff turnover, lack of efficiency for visitors including NHS staff and lack of infection control suggesting requirement for innovation and improvement. Pre-implementation interviews showed openness and interest in FRLT, although initial queries were raised around cost effectiveness and staff skills. Following implementation, good levels of adoption were achieved with 72% and 100% (49/68 and 18/18) of staff members uploading their face at the two sites, and 100% of residents at Site B using the system (6/6). Additionally, Site B made a positive procurement decision and continues to discuss wider rollout. Post implementation interviews suggested FRLT was useful and acceptable for improving security and access. Benefits identified included staff/visitor time saving, enhanced security, team ease of access, resident autonomy and fewer shared touch points. Integration was suggested including with fire alarm systems, staff clocking in/out, and Covid monitoring to improve usefulness. The developers have since responded to feedback with design iterations. We identified concerns on security and access in social care settings, which warrant further exploration and research. FRLT could increase resident autonomy and reduce staff burden, particularly considering frequent multi-agency health and care visits.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
There is limited literature on security and access for social care settings despite policy highlighting importance, and no published research exploring facial recognition lock technology (FRLT) for potential improvements. This study explored FRLT device implementation, use, barriers and benefits.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
One residential care home with 43 older adults and 68 staff members (Site A), and one supported living facility caring for six individuals with mental health issues with 18 staff members (Site B) were provided with FRLT for six months. Nine pre-implementation staff interviews explored existing access and security perceptions. Ten post-implementation staff interviews and one staff focus group were conducted; all were analysed using content analysis to understand, alongside process mapping, the use and impact of the FRLT. Interview participants included site care staff and other visiting healthcare professionals. We additionally report feedback from the technology developers to demonstrate impact of industry-academia collaboration.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Pre-implementation interviews highlighted issues with current pin-pad or lock-box systems, including; code sharing; code visibility, ineffective code changes, security issues following high staff turnover, lack of efficiency for visitors including NHS staff and lack of infection control suggesting requirement for innovation and improvement. Pre-implementation interviews showed openness and interest in FRLT, although initial queries were raised around cost effectiveness and staff skills. Following implementation, good levels of adoption were achieved with 72% and 100% (49/68 and 18/18) of staff members uploading their face at the two sites, and 100% of residents at Site B using the system (6/6). Additionally, Site B made a positive procurement decision and continues to discuss wider rollout. Post implementation interviews suggested FRLT was useful and acceptable for improving security and access. Benefits identified included staff/visitor time saving, enhanced security, team ease of access, resident autonomy and fewer shared touch points. Integration was suggested including with fire alarm systems, staff clocking in/out, and Covid monitoring to improve usefulness. The developers have since responded to feedback with design iterations.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
We identified concerns on security and access in social care settings, which warrant further exploration and research. FRLT could increase resident autonomy and reduce staff burden, particularly considering frequent multi-agency health and care visits.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36937251
doi: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1066327
pmc: PMC10020502
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1066327Informations de copyright
© 2023 Bradwell, Edwards, Baines, Page, Chatterjee and Jones.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
World J Psychiatry. 2021 Apr 19;11(4):109-123
pubmed: 33889536
Vision Res. 2013 Aug 9;88:38-46
pubmed: 23806271
Nature. 2020 Nov;587(7834):350-353
pubmed: 33208966
J Law Biosci. 2020 Jun 18;7(1):lsaa038
pubmed: 32793372
AMA J Ethics. 2019 Feb 1;21(2):E180-187
pubmed: 30794128
Med Sci Law. 2020 Apr;60(2):131-139
pubmed: 31964224
Gerontologist. 2018 May 8;58(3):438-447
pubmed: 28535264
Lancet Public Health. 2018 Sep;3(9):e447-e455
pubmed: 30174210
Aging Ment Health. 2018 Feb;22(2):261-269
pubmed: 27768393