< Return to Samples


Viper Plagiarism Scan

Plagiarism Report For '480523-495414.docx'

Viper scans your work against over 10 billion web pages as well as any work previously submitted to our firm. Once the scan is completed, the report highlights content that may match these other sources, including links to the relevant sites.

However, not all matching content is a negative thing. Examples of acceptable matching content include: quotations, reference lists/bibliographies, the essay title or question, tables and charts, appendices, and common terminology and phrasing.

Overall plagiarism rating 10% or less : The results show that it is highly unlikely that this document contains plagiarised material. A careful check will only be necessary if this is a lengthy document.

Overall plagiarism rating 11% - 20% : The results show that there is a low risk that the document contains any plagiarised material. Most of the matching content will probably be fragments. Review your report for any sections that may not have been referenced properly.

Overall plagiarism rating 21% + : The results show that there is a moderate risk that the document contains plagiarised material. If the overall rating is this high, you need to check your report very carefully. It may be that the bibliography or quotations have caused this, but it is critical that you go through the document and review the areas that the scan has flagged to try to reduce this percentage.

Document Text

The potential for technological innovation to have a transformative impact on health and social care provision has been recognised in relation to a range of areas, including mental health services (Barak and Grohol, 2011), substance addiction (Schoech et al, 2013) and supporting people with disabilities (Mintz et al, 2012; Dunst et al, 2013). Juxtaposed alongside this recognition has been an increasing concern with the ethical, privacy and social justice ramifications of these technological innovations (SCIE, 2014). This essay will explore both the opportunities and the challenges related to the increased use of technology in these settings. Initially, some of the key challenges will be outlined, followed by an attempt to reframe these challenges and look at the potential that technology has to revolutionise many areas of health and social care delivery. In order to explore these issues in depth, a specific and particularly divisive issue will then be considered in depth: surveillance. This will include an exploration of the dominant discourses that exist around surveillance technology in health and social care. It will be shown that while there are undoubtedly challenges in this area, technology itself is only a tool, one that can be used either transformatively or oppressively.
One of the most fundamental challenges related to technological innovation in health and social care relates to staff ability, training and motivation (Liddell et al, 2008; Gillingham, 2015). Health and social care provision has traditionally relied on face to face interactions as the fundamental remit for practice (Berzine et al, 2015). Therefore, any erosion of this interpersonal focus is likely to be challenged by the status quo, and those professionals who fear that their skills may no longer apply to these shifting contexts (Liddell et al, 2008). Unsurprisingly, then, health and social care sectors have been shown to be markedly slow in the uptake of new technological innovations, in particular when compared to private sector organisations (Zorn et al, 2011).
Alongside these practical issues, there are also a range of ethical concerns related to the use of technology in these settings. Chief amongst these is a concern that technology is leading to an exacerbation of some of the key issues that health and social care professionals deal with on a regular basis. For example, research has shown that the over use of technology is leading to an increase in depression and a worsening of depressive symptoms in some (Tong Mok et al, 2014). This is particularly concerning for children, where the younger a person is when they start using technological devices on a regular basis, the more likely they are to experience mental health difficulties related to this (Augner and Hacker, 2012). The use of technology is also linked to an increase in childhood obesity, which is a significant public health concern in contemporary society (Rosen et al, 2013). Other common concerns commonly raised include cyber bullying (Ofcom, 2015), internet addiction (King et al, 2012) and online grooming practices (Palmer, 2015).
It is important, however, that we do not let these concerns lead to an irrational proclivity towards technological scepticism, at the expense of the vast benefits that new technologies could potentially provide for service users and patients. Welsh et al (2003) prominently noted that new technologies are themselves morally neutral, and it is the use to which they are put that raises ethical concerns. Mirroring this perspective, Greenfield (2014) discusses that the impact of any technological innovation depends on how it is utilised, and stresses that it is naïve to consider any technology as intrinsically positive or negative. For example, while it was noted above that technology brings with it particular risks for younger people, it is also important to recognise that technology provides an opportunity to engage with these younger people, in particular young men, a demographic that health and social care agencies have traditionally struggled to engage (Ellis et al, 2012). It has also been shown that some traditional interpersonal interventions, such as person centred counselling, can be effectively provided through new technological mediums (Vossler, 2010).
In order to give greater substance to this discussion it is beneficial to look at one particular area in depth, that of surveillance. Health and social care services are increasingly concerned with issues around privacy, and there are competing priorities in these settings that provide a key challenge in managing these concerns (Zwijsen et al, 2011; Mortenson et al, 2015). On the one hand, the legislative and policy framework that provides the broader context for health and social care delivery is increasingly stressing the importance of sharing information with other professionals. For example, section 6 of the Care Act 2014 outlines that local authorities, the NHS and other organisations involved in the provision of health and social care services must co-operate in general, sharing information as required. There is other legislation in this area that places similar duties on agencies to co-operate in this way, including the Children Act 2004 and the Health and Social Care Act 2012. However, these requirements to share information exist alongside the fundamental right to family and private life, outlined under section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The concerns around sharing information are exacerbated by the newly implemented General Data Protection Regulation 2016, which came into force in the UK in May 2018, and places substantial responsibilities on governmental and non-governmental agencies when it comes to confidentially storing, processing and sharing personal data.
Alongside these competing priorities, it is undoubtedly the case that we are living in a society that is more concerned with surveillance than ever, and this has extended to health and social care settings (Mortenson et al, 2015). Welsh et al (2003) argued that we are gradually moving from a concern about being under surveillance to one of being concerned if we are not under surveillance, and these issues have only intensified due to the wider availability of technology to provide unceasing surveillance (Perry et al, 2010). The types of technological advances that allow for more consistent surveillance in health and social care include telecare sensors, GPS devices, cameras and smart health recording devices (Mortenson et al, 2015). To show how prevalent surveillance technology has become in health and social care, one only has to look at the fact that the CQC (2015) and SCIE (2014) have both provided explicit guidance on using surveillance technology in health and social care settings.
It is vital to recognise that surveillance technologies can have substantial benefits for individuals making use of health and social care services. For example, older adults who wish to remain in their own home have been shown to value the use of surveillance technology to facilitate this and prevent a premature move to a care home (Perry et al, 2010; Andruszkiewicz and Fike, 2015). Furthermore, surveillance technology has been successful in recent years in uncovering some of the most egregious abuses in health and social care services, most notably in Winterbourne View Hospital, where traditional whistleblowing and inspections had failed (Flynn, 2012). However, alongside a consideration of these benefits there is minimal consideration of the ethical ramifications of these new surveillance technologies (Perry et al, 2010; Gillingham, 2015). This point is significant because research shows that managers, practitioners and patients often have vastly differing perspectives on the risks related to these new surveillance technologies (Essen and Conrick, 2008; Mortenson et al, 2015).
In order to comprehensively analyse these issues, it is helpful to look at the discourse that is used in this area. Foucault (1980) defines discourse as ‘historically variable ways to specify knowledge and truth’ (p.93). There are key discourses around surveillance that typify the debate in this area, in particular the technical discourse, or what the technological systems actually do, and the discourse on rights, or the acceptability of the technology systems to these settings (SCIE, 2014). In relation to the discourse on rights, a movement has begun based on the principle of ‘no information about me without me’, related to a desire for health and social care agencies to not store or use information about service users without explicit consent and user involvement (Cantor, 2006: 49). Alongside this is a recognition that the concepts of privacy and surveillance are inextricably linked to consent and capacity as defined under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (SCIE, 2014). The technical discourse, while valuable for innovation and development, does not provide space for these types of discussions, and so it is crucial that we do no lose sight of the rights discourse alongside this (SCIE, 2014). Technological innovation in health and social care has the capacity to transform service provision; however, technology alone is not a guarantee of enhanced social justice or service provision, which should be the ultimate goal of professionals and organisation in this area (Goldkind and Wolf, 2015).
This essay has shown that there are clear challenges and opportunities for technological innovation in health and social care settings, and that it is the practitioners, managers and policy makers in this area who will shape the impact that these new technological innovations have. This essay started by discussing some of the commonly noted challenges that technology presents in this area, followed by a consideration of the opportunities that exist alongside these concerns. The concept of surveillance was then considered in depth, in particular around how discourse impacts on how technology is perceived in these settings. This discussion around discourse should remain central to how we engage with technology in these settings, and there is potential for technological innovation to be driven not by what is best for service users and patients, but instead by a desire to save money and promote perceived efficiency (Norrie et al, 2014). Keeping the discourse of rights at the centre of all discussions in this area will play a key role in mitigating these issues, and ensuring that the vast opportunities presented by these new technological innovations are realised.
Andruszkiewicz, G. and Fike, K. (2015) ‘Emerging technology trends and products: How tech innovations are easing the burden of family caregiving’, Journal of the American Society on Aging, 39(4), 64-68.
Augner, C. and Hacker, G. (2012) ‘Associations between problematic mobile phone use and psychological parameters in young adults’, International Journal of Public Health, 57(2), 437-441.
Barak, A. and Grohol, J. (2011) ‘Current and future trends in internet-supported mental health interventions’, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 29, 155–196.
Berzine, S., Singer, J. and Chan, C. (2015) Practice Innovation through Technology in the Digital Age: A Grand Challenge for Social Work, Columbia: AASWSW.
Cantor, M. (2006) ‘No information about me without me: Technology, Privacy and Home Monitoring’, Technology Innovations and Aging, 30(2), 49-53.
Care Quality Commission (2015) Using Surveillance: Information for providers of health and social care on using surveillance to monitor services, London: CQC.
Dunst, C., Trivett, C., Hamby, D. and Simkus, A. (2013) ‘Systematic review of studies promoting the use of assistive technology devices by young children with disabilities’, Tots and Tech, 8(1), 1-21.
Ellis, L., Collin, P., Davenport, T., Hurley, P., Burns, J. and Hickie, I. (2012) ‘Young Men, Mental Health, and Technology: Implications for Service Design and Delivery in the Digital Age’, Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14(6), e160.
Essen, A. and Conrick, M. (2008) ‘New E-service development in the homecare sector: Beyond implementing a radical technology’, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77, 679-688.
Flynn, M. (2012) Winterbourne View Hospital Serious Case Review, Gloucestershire: GSAB.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-77, New York: Pantheon.
Gillingham, P. (
2015) ‘Electronic information Systems and Human Services Organisations: The Unanticipated Consequences of Organisational Change’, Human Service Organisations, 39(2), 89-100.
Goldkind, A. and Riva, G. (2015) ‘A digital environment approach: Four technologies that will disrupt social work practice’, Social Work, 60(1), 85-87.
Greenfield, P. (2014) Mind and Media: The effects of Television, Video Games and Computers, New York: Psychology Press.
King, D., Griffiths, M. and Gradisar, M. (2012) ‘Cognitive-behavioural approaches to outpatient treatment of internet addiction in children and adolescents’, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68(11), 1185-1195.
Liddell, A., Adshead, S. and Burgess, E. (2008) Technology in the NHS Transforming the patient’s experience of care, London: The King’s Fund.
Mintz, J., Branch, C., March, C. and Lerman, S. (2012) ‘Key factors mediating the use of a mobile technology tool designed to develop social and life skills in children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders’, Computers and Education, 58(1), 53-62.
Mortenson, W., Sixsmith, A. and Woolrych, R. (2015) ‘The powers of observation: theoretical perspectives on surveillance technologies and older people’, Ageing and Society, 35, 512-530.
Norrie, C., Stevens, M., Graham, K., Manthorpe, J., Moriarty, J. and Hussein, S. (2014) ‘Investigating models of adult safeguarding in England – a mixed-methods approach’, Journal of Adult Protection, 16(6), 377-388.
Ofcom (2015) Report on Internet Safety Measures, London: Ofcom.
Palmer, T. (2015) Digital dangers: The impact of technology on the sexual abuse and exploitation of children and young people, London: Bernardo’s.
Perry, J., Beyer, S., Francis, J. and Holmes, P. (2010) Ethical issues in the use of telecare, London: SCIE.
Rosen, L., Whaling, K., Rab, S., Carrier, L. and Cheever, N. (2013) ‘Is Facebook creating iDisorders? The link between clinical symptoms of psychiatric disorders and technology use, attitudes and anxiety’, Computers in Human Behaviour, 29(3), 1243-1254.
Schoech, D., Boyas, J., Black, B. M. and Elias-Lambert, N. (2013) ‘Gamification for behaviour change: Lessons from developing a social, multiuser, Web-tablet based prevention game for youths’, Journal of Technology in Human Services, 31(3), 197–217.
Care Institute for Excellence (2014) Electronic Surveillance in Health and Social Care Settings: A Brief Review, London: SCIE.
Tong Mok, M. Sing, R., Jiang, X. and See, L. (2014) ‘Investigation of social media on depression’, The 9th International Symposium on Chinese Spoken Language Processing, 488-491.
Vossler, A. (2010) ‘Context and Setting’, in M. Barker, A. Vossler and D. Langdridge (eds) Understanding Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage.
Welsh, S.,
Hassiotis, A., O’Mahony, G. and Deahl, M. (2003) ‘Big Brother is watching you: The ethical implications of electronic surveillance measures in the elderly with dementia and in adults with learning difficulties’, 7(5), 372-375.
Zorn, T., Flanagin, A., and Shoham, M. (2011) ‘Institutional and non-institutional influences on information and communication technology adoption and use among non-profit organizations’, Human Communication Research, 37(1), 1–33.
Zwijsen, S., Niemeijer, A. and Hertogh, C. (2011) ‘Ethics of using assistive technology in the care for community-dwelling elderly people’, Ageing and Mental Health, 15(4), 419-427

< Return to Samples