Portugal recognised the Informal Carer Statute in 2019, through Law 100/2019, creating a legal figure for something that had existed for decades: someone caring for a relative at home, without being a health professional and without hours.
The statute distinguishes the primary carer — who cares permanently and has no professional activity — from the non-primary, who combines both. Only the primary can access the support allowance, subject to household means testing, which in practice excludes many people caring full time. Respite care also exists, with availability varying widely by municipality.
We write this because it is the context where most technology is offered and where least of it helps.
What actually weighs at home
Talking to those who care, the problems repeat, and almost none are what technology usually promises to solve:
- no relief. The person has not left the house in months;
- isolation, which belongs to the carer and not only to the person cared for — and worth separating from loneliness, which is a different thing;
- the nights, when there is agitation or disturbed sleep;
- the dead hours — the day is long and there are stretches with nothing to do and no way to leave;
- information, which arrives in fragments and never at the right moment;
- guilt, when institutional care starts being considered.
What technology solves, honestly
Solves reasonably well: communication with people far away, medication reminders, fall and door sensors, and telemonitoring in specific situations. These are concrete and cheap, and most already exist as consumer products.
Only appears to solve: almost anything promising to "occupy" the person being cared for over long periods with nobody nearby. If the product requires the carer to be present and attentive, it returned no time at all — it only changed what is done with it.
Does not solve at all: the absence of relief. No equipment turns up on Tuesdays so someone can go to their own doctor. That is the central problem and it is a services problem, not a device one.
Where RVer sits in this — and the answer is uncomfortable
Let us be direct, because the question reaches us often.
RVer is not a consumer product and is not sold to families for domestic use. It is a Class I medical device registered with Infarmed, and its intended purpose states that use is always supervised — the manual is explicit: never leave the person alone with the headset. The intended users are health professionals and trained carers.
That has a practical consequence worth stating plainly: in a domestic setting without professional support, a session requires the carer to be there, attentive, throughout. In other words it returns no time — and time is exactly what is missing. Selling it as "an hour of rest" would be selling the opposite of what the product is.
Where it does make sense: when there is a team behind it. Home support, continuing care, a palliative team following the person at home, a day centre. There a professional runs the session and the carer does not gain another task.
And one thing makes sense in any case, even with the person in an institution: the video call during the session, which serves precisely the carer who cannot be there.
If you care at home, what to ask whoever is selling
- Does it require me to be present? If so, it returns me no time. It may still be good, but for another reason.
- Is it a medical device? And if so, what is the intended purpose and who is the intended user?
- Does it work without internet?
- What happens if I cannot manage it? Is there training, is there someone on the phone?
- What does it cost per month, all included?
In short
- The Statute has existed since 2019, but the allowance is means-tested and does not reach everyone who cares.
- The central problem is the absence of relief, and that is services, not technology.
- A product requiring presence returns no time.
- RVer is not sold for domestic use without professional support — the intended purpose requires supervision.
- Where there is a team, it makes sense. Where there is not, we say no.