Background As our society is ageing, nursing homes are finding it increasingly difficult to deal with an expanding population of patients with dementia and a decreasing workforce. A potential answer to this problem might lie in the use of technology. However, the use and application of surveillance technology in dementia care has led to considerable ethical debate among healthcare professionals and ethicists, with no clear consensus to date.
Aim To explore how surveillance technology is viewed by care professionals and ethicists working in the field, by investigating the ideal application of surveillance technology in the residential care of people with dementia.
Methods Use was made of the concept mapping method, a computer-assisted procedure consisting of five steps: brainstorming, prioritising, clustering, processing by the computer and analysis. Various participants (ranging from ethicists to physicians and nurses) were invited on the basis of their professional background.
Results The views generated are grouped into six categories ranging from the need for a right balance between freedom and security, to be beneficial and tailored to the resident, and clearly defined procedures to competent and caring personnel, active monitoring and clear normative guidance. The results are presented in the form of a graphic chart.
Conclusions There appears to be an inherent duality in the views on using surveillance technology which is rooted in the moral conflict between safety and freedom. Elaboration of this ethical issue has proved to be very difficult.
- surveillance technology
- concept mapping
- residential care
- applied and professional ethics
- philosophy of medicine
- quality/value of life/personhood
- mentally diasbled persons
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This study was funded by ActiZ, Nuts Ohra, RVVZ, ‘Stichting Dioraphte’, ‘Stichting Regionale Zorgverlening Zeeland’, ‘Vereniging Gehandicaptenzorg Nederland’ and ‘Vereniging Het Zonnehuis’.
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.