Introduction

As noted in Chapter Four, the main difference in the evolutionary path for social alarms or personal response systems and services (PRS) in North America arises from the fact that their development was almost entirely a private sector phenomenon, with such services being promoted on the basis of cost savings in healthcare. This contrasts markedly with the position in Great Britain where, as was noted in Chapters Five and Six, development predominantly took place within the public sector and was concerned with housing and social welfare agendas.

This is not to suggest that there was no overlap or common ground between the respective experiences. Both, as with other developed countries, experimented with bell and buzzer systems in the context of different types of accommodation, such simple technologies becoming particularly commonplace in institutions. However, the ensuing paths were divergent.

In Canada, common ground has been evident mostly with the United States and relates to the fact that social alarms (PRS) were seen as relevant, at least in part, to private sector healthcare services. There is also, however, some common ground with Great Britain relating to the recognition that social alarms are also relevant to the needs of older people in public sector housing.

The Canadian context is one where there are relatively high levels of public sector housing provision in some areas. In 1992, for instance, there were 46,000 public sector dwellings for older people in the province of Ontario (Hobbs, 1992, p 24). PRS installations had at this time already been made in the context of healthcare facilities and nursing homes, reflecting the nature of developments in the United States. The Rainycrest Home for the Aged at Fort Frances, Ontario, for instance, had PRS installed in 1985 and was an early example of the use of such technologies in what was a typical setting. The service providers saw it as an addition to their programme of support for older people, which included homemaker services, transportation services and a ‘call a day’, and helped older people in an area stretching over a 150 km radius stay in their homes as long as possible (Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services, 1986, p 3). This service is profiled below.