Selecting Mobile Personal Alarms: 12 Evaluation Criteria for Aged Care Providers
Mobile personal alarms can provide an important connection to assistance when older people experience an emergency. Yet selecting an appropriate solution requires considerably more than comparing devices, prices and advertised features.
For aged care providers, personal alarms form part of a broader care and risk management environment. Their effectiveness depends on the interaction between the person wearing the device, the technology, communication networks, monitoring services and the people responsible for responding.
A technically capable device can still fail to deliver meaningful benefits if it is uncomfortable, difficult to charge, unreliable in the intended environment or poorly supported.
Based on eHomeCare's experience evaluating smart care technologies, twelve criteria deserve particular attention.
On this page:
The Difference Between Product Features and Service Reliability
Personal alarms are commonly evaluated through their most visible capabilities: emergency buttons, automatic fall detection, two-way communication and GPS location tracking.
These features are important, but they represent only part of the solution.
In practice, the less visible characteristics often determine whether the device is adopted and remains effective.
Battery life, charging arrangements, connectivity, supplier support, usability and integration can have a greater influence on long-term performance than the number of functions advertised.
A provider should therefore evaluate two dimensions:
Non-functional requirements determine whether the solution is reliable, usable, supportable and sustainable.
Functional capabilities determine what the solution can do when assistance is required.
Both are essential, but the non-functional requirements should be assessed first.
Eight Non-Functional Requirements
1. Total Cost of Ownership
The purchase price of a mobile personal alarm represents only one component of its cost.
Providers should consider device acquisition, configuration, connectivity, monitoring subscriptions, software licensing, maintenance, replacement and administrative support.
Some solutions include professional monitoring, while others rely on nominated contacts to respond to alerts.
These arrangements have different cost structures and operational implications.
A low-cost device may become expensive if it requires frequent replacement, generates excessive false alarms or creates additional work for care coordinators.
A provider's evaluation should therefore consider total cost of ownership alongside the service outcomes the technology is expected to deliver.
2. Ease of Use and Accessibility
A personal alarm provides little protection if the person cannot or will not use it.
The device must suit the individual's physical capabilities, cognitive abilities, preferences and everyday routines.
Important considerations include the size and accessibility of the emergency button, clarity of audio communication, comfort, weight and ease of charging.
The device should also be tested in realistic situations.
Can the person activate it while seated or lying down? Can they understand instructions from the monitoring centre? Is the device comfortable enough to wear throughout the day?
For providers, usability should be evaluated through practical trials rather than assumed from product specifications.
3. Setup, Maintenance and Supplier Support
Personal alarms require ongoing management.
Devices must be configured correctly, emergency contacts maintained, software updated and faults resolved.
When a provider supports many devices, these responsibilities can become operationally significant.
Supplier evaluation should establish who manages installation, activation, testing, technical support, replacement and service changes.
Providers should also understand how quickly faulty devices can be replaced and whether the supplier provides appropriate reporting on device status and service performance.
A personal alarm is not simply a product purchase. It is an ongoing service commitment.
4. Battery Performance and Charging
Battery performance remains one of the most important determinants of reliability.
Manufacturers may advertise battery life under particular operating conditions that do not reflect everyday use.
Frequent GPS updates, mobile communication and other functions can significantly affect power consumption.
Providers should request evidence of battery performance under the configuration they intend to deploy.
Charging arrangements also matter.
A device requiring daily charging may be unsuitable for someone who regularly forgets or struggles to manage the process.
Charging cradles, magnetic connectors, low-battery notifications and remote battery-status reporting can improve usability.
The important question is not simply how long the battery lasts, but whether the complete charging arrangement is sustainable for the individual and the care service.
5. Design, Comfort and Environmental Protection
Personal alarms are commonly available as pendants, wrist-worn devices and watches.
Each design involves trade-offs between comfort, accessibility, battery capacity and functionality.
A device that is too heavy, uncomfortable or visually unappealing may be removed or left unused.
Providers should involve the intended wearer in selecting the form factor wherever possible.
Environmental protection is another consideration.
Devices may be exposed to rain, moisture or water during bathing and everyday activities.
Suppliers should provide appropriate ingress-protection specifications, and providers should confirm what those ratings mean for the intended use.
A device described as water-resistant should not automatically be assumed suitable for swimming or prolonged immersion.
6. Mobile Connectivity and Network Compatibility
Mobile personal alarms depend on communication networks, and their reliability is influenced by coverage, device compatibility and network configuration.
Australia's 3G network shutdown has made the compatibility of older devices a particularly important consideration.
Providers should ensure that devices support current Australian mobile networks and the voice and emergency-calling capabilities required for their operation.
A device being described as 4G-compatible is not sufficient evidence that every function will work correctly on the intended network.
Suppliers should confirm supported network bands, voice-calling arrangements, emergency-calling functionality and any dependencies on specific carriers.
Coverage should also be assessed in the environments where the device will be used.
Basements, lifts, concrete buildings, rural locations and other challenging environments can affect communication reliability.
No mobile personal alarm should be assumed to work everywhere.
Providers should establish how connectivity limitations are communicated, tested and managed.
7. Standalone Operation and Integration
Some personal alarms operate independently through an embedded SIM and communication service.
Others depend on a nearby smartphone, home base station or connected application.
These arrangements have different implications for reliability and user independence.
A smartphone-dependent device may be unsuitable if the person frequently leaves their phone behind or cannot maintain its battery.
For care organisations, another important consideration is whether the solution supports centralised administration and integration.
Providers may need to manage multiple devices, monitor their operational status and connect alerts with care management or incident management processes.
Integration can reduce administrative effort and improve coordination, but only when workflows and responsibilities are clearly defined.
The objective should be a coordinated service rather than simply a collection of connected devices.
8. Privacy, Security and Information Governance
Personal alarm systems may collect sensitive information, including identity details, emergency contacts, location information and records of alerts or interactions.
Providers should understand where this information is stored, who can access it and how it is protected.
Supplier due diligence should address access controls, encryption, software updates, incident management, data retention and contractual responsibilities.
Location tracking requires particular consideration because it can reveal detailed information about a person's movements and routines.
Consent, transparency and proportionality should guide how these capabilities are used.
For providers, privacy and cybersecurity are not optional product features. They are essential components of responsible technology governance.
Four Functional Capabilities
Once the non-functional requirements have been assessed, providers can evaluate the capabilities required for the intended care scenario.
9. Emergency Monitoring and Response
The most important question about a personal alarm is what happens after it is activated.
Some devices contact nominated family members or carers directly. Others connect to a professionally staffed monitoring centre.
Both arrangements can be appropriate, depending on the individual's circumstances and the responsibilities of those involved.
However, providers should distinguish between generating an alert, receiving it, answering it and arranging assistance.
These are separate stages of the response process.
For professionally monitored services, an indicative target of approximately 15–30 seconds to answer an incoming emergency alert may be useful when evaluating suppliers. This is not a universal industry standard or a guarantee of emergency assistance within that period.
Providers should request evidence of actual service performance, including how response times are measured.
They should also assess escalation procedures, operator training, service continuity and arrangements for situations where the wearer cannot communicate.
The quality of the response is as important as its speed.
A rapid connection provides limited value if the operator lacks relevant information or cannot initiate an appropriate response.
10. Two-Way Communication
Two-way communication allows the wearer and responder to speak directly through the device.
This can help establish the nature of an emergency, provide reassurance and determine what assistance may be required.
However, audio quality varies between devices and environments.
Providers should test speaker volume, microphone sensitivity and communication clarity under realistic conditions.
They should also establish whether the device supports only emergency communication or allows calls to approved contacts for other purposes.
The appropriate functionality depends on the intended use and the person's capabilities.
11. Automatic Fall Detection
Automatic fall detection can provide an additional method of initiating assistance when a person is unable to press an emergency button.
However, fall detection systems are not infallible.
Some falls may not be detected, while everyday movements can trigger false alarms.
Performance depends on the device, sensor technology, wearing position, detection algorithms and the circumstances of the event.
Providers should request evidence of detection performance and understand how sensitivity, false positives and missed events have been evaluated.
They should also distinguish between fall detection, fall risk assessment and fall prevention.
These are different capabilities and should not be treated as interchangeable.
AI may improve the interpretation of movement data, but its use does not eliminate the need for validation and appropriate response arrangements.
For a detailed discussion, see Fall Prevention or Fall Detection? What Smart Care Technology Can Really Deliver.
12. Location Tracking and Geofencing
Location tracking may help locate a person who is unable to communicate their position or who requires assistance away from home.
Some devices also support geofencing, where an alert is generated when the device crosses a defined geographical boundary.
These capabilities can be relevant for particular care scenarios, including supporting people experiencing cognitive impairment.
However, location accuracy and update frequency vary.
GPS performance can be reduced indoors, while frequent location updates may affect battery life.
Providers should evaluate the accuracy, timeliness and reliability of location information in the intended environment.
Geofencing arrangements should also respect the individual's rights, preferences and freedom of movement.
The objective is to support safety and independence, not impose unnecessary restrictions.
The Emerging Role of AI in Personal Alarm Services
Artificial intelligence is creating opportunities to improve how personal alarm and monitoring services interpret information.
AI-enabled systems may help classify alerts, identify unusual patterns or provide operators with relevant contextual information.
Conversational AI may also support routine interactions and assist with gathering information during an alert.
However, the use of AI in emergency monitoring introduces significant responsibilities.
Providers must understand which decisions are automated, how errors are identified and when human intervention is required.
An AI system should not independently dismiss potentially critical alerts without appropriate validation, safeguards and accountable oversight.
False positives can create unnecessary work, but false negatives can have serious consequences.
AI should therefore be evaluated as part of the complete monitoring and response service, not as an isolated feature.
Evaluating the Complete Service
For aged care providers, selecting mobile personal alarms should begin with a clear understanding of the people and care environments being supported.
A device suitable for an independent older person may not meet the needs of someone experiencing significant mobility limitations or cognitive impairment.
Similarly, a solution appropriate for a small community care service may not provide the administration, reporting and integration capabilities required for a larger organisation.
A structured evaluation should consider the intended outcomes, operational requirements, service risks and total cost.
Suppliers should be asked to demonstrate their capabilities under realistic conditions, including emergency activation, communication failure, low battery, false alarms and escalation.
Providers should also establish how the service will be governed after implementation.
Who monitors performance? Who manages device faults? Who reviews incidents? Who ensures that emergency contacts and response arrangements remain current?
These responsibilities are fundamental to sustainable service delivery.
For a broader perspective on technology evaluation, see Which Assistive Technology Solution Should You Choose?.
From Device Selection to Care Assurance
Mobile personal alarms can provide an important safety capability for people receiving care at home or living independently.
However, their value is determined by much more than the device itself.
A successful solution combines appropriate functionality, dependable connectivity, practical usability, effective monitoring and clear operational accountability.
Through its independent Technology Advisory services, eHomeCare helps providers assess technology options against care needs, service requirements and long-term sustainability.
The objective is not simply to select the best personal alarm. It is to establish a reliable service that people can depend on when assistance is needed.
Hubert van Dalen is the founder of eHomeCare, providing independent digital strategy, governance, technology and transformation advisory services to Australian aged care and disability providers.
Comments