Thank you very much for attending the Care Tech Symposium, “The 3rd Session: How Care Technology Is Created and Used.”
We are sincerely grateful that so many people watched the symposium and that it concluded successfully.
We received many questions from viewers both on the day of the symposium and through the post-event survey.
In this article, we would like to share our responses to the questions we received.
We hope you will find them useful as hints for future facility management, operational improvement, and equipment implementation.
Session 1
Q1. This is a question about the care industry as a whole. Regarding the introduction of technology, although it may depend on the specific type of technology, was the use of ICT subsidies assumed when considering technologies that require initial costs? If you have any records of the proportion of such cases, could you please share them?
Answer:
Pages 20 to 24 of the “FY2022 Subsidy for the Promotion of Elderly Health Services, Elderly Health Promotion Project: Survey and Research on the Management Effects of Introducing Care Robots, Report (March 2023, The Japan Research Institute, Limited)” include responses on whether the use of subsidies was a deciding factor for introducing each type of technology.
Please refer to the PDF document below.
Download Materials
Q2. I thought it might be useful to further refine the results of preliminary discussions using AI. How do you think AI should be used?
Answer:
Rather than using AI on the final results, we believe it is better to use AI as a sounding board during the preliminary discussion stage.
Q3. Could you tell us where to download the “Eight Approaches”?
Answer:
Please download the PDF materials below.
Download Materials
Session 2
Q1. Regarding the case shown in the slides on the day of the symposium, during the eight months of care for Mr./Ms. Y, do you feel that it would have been difficult to achieve the same improvement in sleep quality without technology?
Answer:
Improvement may still have been possible even without introducing technology devices. However, because it would have taken time to collect and compile data, and because staff would not have been able to observe behavior inside the resident’s room, each staff member may have formed different assumptions about Mr./Ms. Y’s behavior and state of mind. As a result, it likely would have taken longer to reach a clear conclusion in conferences and similar discussions.
By introducing the devices, the time required to achieve improvement was dramatically shorter compared with previous efforts. In addition, having data throughout the process made it easier to build consensus among members of the support team and enabled the team to provide care more smoothly while moving in the same direction. As a result, we believe sleep conditions improved relatively quickly.
Q2. I was interested in the implementation costs. Our company also considers introducing technology every year, but in most cases, once we obtain quotations, the costs are high and we do not proceed with actual implementation. Some prefectures provide generous subsidies, but unfortunately, in our region, we cannot expect much public support. How did you introduce sleep sensors and excretion sensors?
Answer:
As for cost sharing, some devices were fully funded by our corporation, while others were partially funded through subsidies. Broadly speaking, the breakdown is as follows.
・Fully funded by our corporation: Nemuri SCAN, two Toilet Diary units, Helppad2, SCOP, VOIT
・Subsidy-supported: Nemuri SCAN eye, two Toilet Diary units, the Hug transfer-assist robot, and the onbu excretion support lift
・Grant-supported, through the Hokkoku Ai no Hohoemi Fund: KINUAMI CARE
Initially, the facility covered the costs, but in recent years we have been using subsidies every year to introduce such devices. That said, the subsidies do not cover the full amount, so the financial burden on the facility remains significant.Personally, I view the cost of introducing devices as part of staff development and training expenses, as well as employee welfare expenses. For that reason, at first we introduced them at the facility’s own expense without waiting for subsidy timing.
Although there is cost-effectiveness in the direct benefits of introducing devices, such as monitoring, camera images, and excretion notifications, the added value is also considerable when viewed as the cost of training next-generation care workers on site, meaning OJT expenses, and as employee welfare expenses to improve staff retention. The question is whether to invest the same amount of money in hiring one person through a paid recruitment agency, or to invest it in creating a workplace that is easier for the staff who are already working hard. We believe investment is necessary at each stage of “recruitment, retention, and development,” so we budget for equipment implementation every year and introduce devices gradually.
Q3. When introducing new equipment, we are concerned about running costs and implementation costs. Although the expansion of subsidies has provided some support, there are many cases where we hesitate to introduce equipment because it may ultimately go unused or be discontinued after implementation. The additional revenue from care service add-ons is not very large either, so we are unsure what to do. Budget planning is important, but how do you manage staff awareness and funding? Also, among the things you have introduced that ultimately turned out well, which was the most difficult to start working on?
Answer:
We have also had cases at our facility where we ultimately discontinued use, so we understand how you feel.
The following overlaps with the answer to Q2.
Personally, I view the cost of introducing devices not only as equipment implementation costs, but also as staff development and training expenses, as well as employee welfare expenses.
Although there is cost-effectiveness in the direct benefits of introducing devices, such as monitoring, camera images, and excretion notifications, the added value is also considerable when viewed as the cost of training next-generation care workers on site, meaning OJT expenses, and as employee welfare expenses to improve staff retention. The question is whether to invest the same amount of money in hiring one person through a paid recruitment agency, or to invest it in creating a workplace that is easier for the staff who are already working hard. We believe investment is necessary at each stage of “recruitment, retention, and development,” so we budget for equipment implementation every year and introduce devices gradually.
As for staff awareness, perhaps because our facility has introduced various devices over time, there are currently very few staff members who oppose the introduction of new equipment. When introducing new equipment, individual staff members actively share opinions on the target users, usage methods, and expected effects, while exchanging information and engaging proactively. Since we are a small facility, it is easy for everyone to express their opinions and discuss matters together, which has had a positive effect.
One item that was good to introduce but had a high barrier was the intercom system.
This was a case where being a small facility worked against us. Because people could call out loudly and be heard throughout the facility, we struggled to communicate the necessity and purpose of introducing the intercom system and to promote its use.
Some staff members removed the device because it felt uncomfortable to wear, and in some cases voices did not get through even when it was used, making it ineffective. We also had to carefully review what kinds of communication should be handled through the intercom, which was challenging. About two years have passed since its introduction, and we are still considering better ways to use it.
Q4. Thank you for sharing the successful case studies. When introducing technology, I believe both initial costs and running costs are involved. Regarding the initial costs, are many implementations basically carried out on the assumption that subsidies will be used? We would appreciate any information you can share.
Answer:
The following overlaps with the answer to Q2.
Initially, the facility covered the costs, but in recent years we have been using subsidies every year to introduce such devices. Running costs are borne by the facility, but as for initial costs, some devices were fully funded by our corporation while others were partially funded through subsidies.
For some of the devices, the cost-sharing situation at our corporation is as follows.
・Fully funded by our corporation: Nemuri SCAN, two Toilet Diary units, Helppat2, SCOP, VOIT
・Subsidy-supported: Nemuri SCAN eye, two Toilet Diary units, the Hug transfer-assist robot, and the onbu excretion support lift
・Grant-supported, through the Hokkoku Ai no Hohoemi Fund: KINUAMI CARE
Q5. I have a question about Toilet Diary. I believe it costs a certain amount to introduce it. Is the cost borne by the resident or the service provider? We would appreciate it if you could also share the reason.
Answer:
At our facility, there are only two shared toilets in each unit, and there are no toilets installed in individual rooms. For that reason, the service provider bears the cost of introducing it.
Even if it were used for toilets installed in individual rooms, or for shared toilets used by specific individuals, we believe we would still introduce it at the service provider’s expense.
The reason is that Toilet Diary is one means of understanding excretion status as part of excretion support, and it is not introduced based on the resident’s own request. Rather, it is introduced based on the service provider’s intention, with the resident’s consent. In addition, the primary purpose of introducing it was to reduce the psychological burden on staff when confirming residents’ excretion status, so we considered it something for the staff and therefore a cost to be borne by the service provider.
Session 3
Q1. It seemed that not only work visualization but also staffing improvements were carried out at all facilities. Were there any trends in staffing arrangements?
Answer:
Many of the cases introduced at the symposium led from work visualization to the “optimization of staffing arrangements.” A major trend in staffing improvement is the creation of flexible systems based on objective data, eliminating imbalances in both work and personnel.
Specifically, the following three trends can be observed.
Reviewing customary and uniform tasks, and leveling workloads
Conducting time study surveys, or work visualization, reveals not only the concentration of tasks during specific time periods, but also uniform support provided “in the same way to everyone” and tasks that continue simply as customary practices. In many cases, these are major factors behind staff feeling busy or perceiving a shortage of personnel.
First, we fundamentally review the necessity of these tasks and aim to create substantial time through task reduction and changes to procedures. We then reassign tasks that can be shifted to different times, smoothing out the peaks and valleys of workload throughout the day. By combining “task reduction” and “workload leveling,” we build a system that allows staff to focus on care that is truly necessary.
Organizing tasks and reviewing role allocation
To allow each staff member to concentrate on the “direct care” they should primarily focus on, we organize the necessity and role allocation of peripheral tasks such as meal serving and cleaning.
We distinguish between tasks that should be handled within the facility and tasks that can be made more efficient through outsourcing to specialized providers, creating an environment where each staff member can fully demonstrate their expertise.
Staffing arrangements based on the use of technology
By introducing ICT devices such as monitoring sensors and intercom systems, the burden of regular rounds and safety checks that were previously performed by human hands and eyes can be significantly reduced.
The mainstream approach is to entrust tasks that can be handled by technology to technology, and then reallocate the time and staffing capacity created as a result to situations that require individual communication and higher-quality care.
These improvements begin with first “understanding” the current situation. At our company, we provide hands-on support for optimizing staffing arrangements according to each facility’s actual conditions, after visualizing work using objective data and clarifying the issues.
Q2. Is there anything manufacturers can do to help facilities build acceptance systems or conduct study sessions?
Answer:
We believe this is a very important and pressing theme for manufacturers involved in technology development.
Based on our experience supporting productivity improvement in many care settings, there are three perspectives in which we would like manufacturers to cooperate so that high-function products can truly be “utilized” on site.
From “function explainer” to “partner who shares the purpose”
In the typical process of “equipment selection, implementation, and usage explanation sessions,” manufacturers tend to remain merely explainers of operating methods.
However, in order to encourage frontline staff to use the equipment proactively, it is essential to discuss not only the operating method, or “how,” but also the reason for introducing it, or “why.” How will users’ lives become richer, and how will staff members’ ways of working become easier? When facility managers and manufacturers work together to communicate this purpose with enthusiasm, it leads to greater staff understanding and motivation to use the equipment.
Provide “solutions for when problems occur” rather than only success stories
Care settings include people of various ages and levels of IT literacy, so simplifying the product’s interface, including its UI and UX, is a fundamental prerequisite.
Beyond that, what the frontline needs is not only lectures on the “correct way to use” the product. We ask that you provide immediate problem-solving tools, such as short video manuals that staff can quickly check when they encounter difficulties during their busy work.
In addition, if examples of cases where things do not go well and specific countermeasures are shared, such as “characteristics of people for whom sensors are less likely to respond and how to address them” or “how to restore communication when it is interrupted,” frontline staff can use the equipment with greater confidence.
Turn the spirit of “co-creation” into the next action
We understand that many manufacturers wish not only to sell products, but also to be partners who “co-create” solutions to challenges in the field.
We hope that this intention will be connected to concrete engagement, such as reviewing the effects after implementation together and considering the next actions. By regularly analyzing usage data and creating opportunities for dialogue, facilities can move away from a “customer” mindset and develop a sense of unity as true partners working together on improvement.
We will continue to support manufacturers with this mindset and care service providers as they collaborate and grow together. If you have any concerns about introducing products or promoting their use on site, please feel free to contact us.
Contact Us | Corporate Services Site | Official SOMPO Care
Q3. Is it possible to receive support from SOMPO Care Inc. only for time study measurement and analysis?
Yes, we can provide support, so please feel free to contact us.
Contact Us | Corporate Services Site | Official SOMPO Care