Robot Assisted Surgical Ward Rounds: Virtually Always There

Stefanie M. Croghan, Paul Carroll, Sarah Reade, Amy E Gillis, Paul F Ridgway

Abstract


Background:  While an explosion in technological sophistication has revolutionized surgery within the operating theatre, delivery of surgical ward-based care has seen little innovation.  Use of telepresence allowing off-site clinicians communicate with patients has been largely restricted to outpatient settings or use of complex, expensive, static devices.  We designed a prospective study to ascertain feasibility and face validity of a remotely controlled mobile audiovisual drone (LUCY) to access inpatients.  This device is, uniquely, lightweight, freely mobile and emulates ‘human’ interaction by swiveling and adjusting height to patients’ eye-level. 

 

 Methods: Robot-assisted ward rounds(RASWR) were conducted over 3 months. A remotely located consultant surgeon communicated with patients/bedside teams via encrypted audiovisual telepresence robot (DoubleRoboticstm, California USA).  Likert-scale satisfaction questionnaires, incorporating free-text sections for mixed-methods data collection, were disseminated to patient and staff volunteers following RASWRs.  The same cohort completed a linked questionnaire following conventional (gold-standard) rounds, acting as control group. Data were paired, and non-parametric analysis performed.

 

 

Results: RASWRs are feasible (>90% completed without technical difficulty). The RASWR(n=52 observations) demonstrated face validity with strong correlations (r>0.7; Spearman, p-value <0.05) between robotic and conventional ward rounds among patients and staff on core themes, including dignity/confidentiality/communication/satisfaction with management plan. Patients (96.08%, n=25) agreed RASWR were a satisfactory alternative when consultant physical presence was not possible. There was acceptance of nursing/NCHD cohort (100% (n=11) willing to regularly partake in RASWR).

 

 Conclusion: RASWRs receive high levels of patient and staff acceptance, and offer a valid alternative to conventional ward rounds when a consultant cannot be physically present.


Keywords


ward rounds; telemedicine; robot; surgical care; face validity

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


Baron J. The first teaching ward round: Leyden 1600. BMJ 2006;333:483.

Physicians RC and Nursing RC. Ward Rounds in Medicine: Principles for Best Practice, 1st edition. London, UK: RCP, 2012.

Kmietowicz Z. Restore ward rounds to former glory to improve patient care, say colleges. BMJ 2012;345:e6622.

Brunton D. Medicine Transformed: Health, Disease and Society in Europe, 1800–1930. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2004.

O’Hare JA. Anatomy of the ward round. European Journal of Internal Medicine 2008;19:309–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2007.09.016. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2007.09.016.

Health Research Analysis Forum. Collaboration UCR. London, UK: UK Health Research Analysis, 2015. Available from: http://www.hrcsonline.net/pages/uk-health-research-analysis-2014. Accessed 7 June 2017.

Findlay G, Goodwin A, Protopapa K, Smith NCE and Mason M. Knowing the Risk: A Review of the Peri Operative Care of Surgical Patients. London, UK: National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death, 2011. Available from: http://www.ncepod.org.uk/2011report2/downloads/POC_fullreport.pdf. Accessed 12 June 2017.

Pucher PH, Aggarwal R and Darzi A. Surgical ward round quality and impact on variable patient outcomes. Annals of Surgery 2014;259:222–26. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000376. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000376.

Silber JH, Williams SV, Krakauer H and Schwartz JS. Hospital and patient characteristics associated with death after surgery. A study of adverse occurrence and failure to rescue. Medical Care 1992;30:615–29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199207000-00004. PMid:1614231.

Dhillon P, Murphy RK, Ali H, Burukan Z, Corrigan MA, Sheikh A, et al. Development of an adhesive surgical ward round checklist: a technique to improve patient safety. Irish Medical Journal 2011;104:303–5. PMid:22256442.

Pucher PH, Aggarwal R, Almond MH and Darzi A. Surgical care checklists to optimize patient care following postoperative complications. American Journal of Surgery 2015;210:517–25. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.018. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2015.03.018.

Pitcher M, Lin JT, Thompson G, Tayaran A and Chan S. Implementation and evaluation of a checklist to improve patient care on surgical ward rounds. ANZ Journal of Surgery 2016;86:356–60. doi: 10.1111/ans.13151. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.13151.

Pucher PH, Aggarwal R, Srisatkunam T and Darzi A. Validation of the simulated ward environment for assessment of ward-based surgical care. Annals of Surgery 2014;259:215–21. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318288e1d4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318288e1d4.

Pucher PH, Aggarwal R, Singh P, Srisatkunam T, Twaij A and Darzi A. Ward simulation to improve surgical ward round performance: a randomized controlled trial of a simulation-based curriculum. Annals of Surgery 2014;260:236–43. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000557. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000557.

Gee C, Morrissey N and Hook S. Departmental induction and the simulated surgical ward round. Clinical Teacher 2015;12:22–6. doi: 10.1111/tct.12247. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12247.

Brown T. Historical First Patents: The First United States Patent for Many Everyday Things. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1994.

Oxford Dictionary of English Online. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015. Available from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/?utm_source=od-panel&utm_campaign=en. Accessed 12 June 2017.

Szigeti T, McMenamy K, Saville R and Glowacki A. Cisco TelePresence Fundamentals. Indianapolis, IN: Cisco Press, 2009.

Bos N, Olson J, Gergle D, Olson G and Wright Z. Effects of Four Computer-Mediated Communications Channels on Trust Development. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2002;135–40. doi: 10.1145/503376.503401. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/503376.503401.

O’Conaill BWS. Conversations over video conferences: an evaluation of the spoken aspects of video-mediated communication. Human-Computer Interaction 1993;8:389–428. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0804_4.

Walther JB. Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: a relational perspective. Communication Research 1992;19(1):52–90. doi: 10.1177/009365092019001003. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/009365092019001003.

Young LB, Chan PS and Cram P. Staff acceptance of tele-ICU coverage: a systematic review. Chest 2011;139:279–88. doi: 10.1378/chest.10-1795. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.10-1795.

Franzini L, Sail KR, Thomas EJ and Wueste L. Costs and cost-effectiveness of a telemedicine intensive care unit program in 6 intensive care units in a large health care system. Journal of Critical Care 2011;26:329.e321–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.12.004. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2010.12.004.

Becevic M, Clarke MA, Alnijoumi MM, Sohal HS, Boren SA, Kim MS, et al. Robotic telepresence in a medical intensive care unit--clinicians’ perceptions. Perspectives in Health Information Management 2015;12:1c.

O’Carroll CB, Hentz JG, Aguilar MI and Demaerschalk BM. Robotic telepresence versus standardly supervised stroke alert team assessments. Telemedicine Journal and e-health 2015;21:151–6. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0064. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0064.

Akbik F, Hirsch JA, Chandra RV, Frei D, Patel AB, Rabinov JD, et al. Telestroke-the promise and the challenge. Part one: growth and current practice. Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery 2017;9(4):357–60. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012291. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012291.

Akbik F, Hirsch JA, Chandra RV, Frei D, Patel AB, Rabinov JD, et al. Telestroke-the promise and the challenge. Part two-expansion and horizons. Journal of Neurointerventional Surgery 2017;9(4):361–65. doi: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012340. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/neurintsurg-2016-012340.

van Gurp J, van Selm M, Vissers K, van Leeuwen E and Hasselaar J. How outpatient palliative care teleconsultation facilitates empathic patient-professional relationships: a qualitative study. PLoS One 2015;10:e0124387. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124387. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124387.

Garingo A, Friedlich P, Chavez T, Tesoriero L, Patil S, Jackson P, et al. “Tele-rounding” with a remotely controlled mobile robot in the neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2016;22:132–8. doi: 10.1177/1357633X15589478. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X15589478.

Mendez I, Jong M, Keays-White D and Turner G. The use of remote presence for health care delivery in a northern Inuit community: a feasibility study. International Journal of Circumpolar Health 2013;72. doi: 10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21112. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.v72i0.21112.

Daruwalla ZJ, Collins DR and Moore DP. “Orthobot, to your station!” The application of the remote presence robotic system in orthopaedic surgery in Ireland: a pilot study on patient and nursing staff satisfaction. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2010;4:177–82. doi: 10.1007/s11701-010-0207-x. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-010-0207-x.

Ellison LM, Pinto PA, Kim F, Ong AM, Patriciu A, Stoianovici D, et al. Telerounding and patient satisfaction after surgery. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2004;199:523–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.06.022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2004.06.022.

Wan AC, Gul Y and Darzi A. Realtime remote consultation in the outpatient clinic--experience at a teaching hospital. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 1999;5(1):S70–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1258/1357633991932621. PMid:10534849.

‘Sister Mary’ the robo-doc to start making ward rounds at St Mary’s Hospital. Imperial College & St. Mary’s Hospital Trust, 2005. Available from https://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=6377. Accessed 12 June 2017.

eir Connected Living Survey. Dublin, Ireland: Eir Pressroom, 2015.

Ofcom. International communications market report 2015. 2015. Available from: http://apo.org.au/node/60992. Accessed 8 August 2016.

TokBox. OpenTok. Available from: https://tokbox.com/developer/. Accessed 11 May 2017.

WRP. WebRTC. 2011. Available from: https://webrtc.org. Accessed 12 June 2017.

Services UDoHaS. HIPAA (Health Information Portability & Accountability Act) 1996. US Government, 2013 update.

Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 1932; 22(140):5–55.

Braun V and Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3(2):77–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Robotics D. Double. 2013. Available from: http://www.doublerobotics.com/business/. Accessed 11 May 2017.

Greenemeier L. Who Needs a Doctor When There’s a Robot in the House, er, Hospital? Scientific American, 8 December 2008.

Vicki Foerster ASaERoNIP. Remote Presence Robots in Telemedicine. Queensland, Australia: Health Policy Advisory Committee on Technology, 2014.

Acker SR and Levitt SR. Designing videoconference facilities for improved eye contact. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 1987;31:181–91. doi: 10.1080/08838158709386656. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158709386656.

Katz MH, Slack R, Bruno M, McMillan J, Fleming JB, Lee JE, et al. Outpatient virtual clinical encounters after complex surgery for cancer: a prospective pilot study of “TeleDischarge.” Journal of Surgical Research 2016;202:196–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.054. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.054.

Warren-Stomberg M, Jacobsson J, Brattwall M and Jildenstål P. At-home monitoring after surgery/anaesthesia – a challenge. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2016;22:882–86. doi: 10.1111/jep.12551. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12551.

Armstrong KA, Semple JL and Coyte PC. Replacing ambulatory surgical follow-up visits with mobile app home monitoring: modeling cost-effective scenarios. Journal of Medical Internet Research 2014;16:e213. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3528. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3528.

Cain SM, Moore R, Sturm L, Mason T, Fuhrman C, Smith R, et al. Clinical assessment and management of general surgery patients via synchronous telehealth. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2017;23(2):371–75. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16636245. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16636245.

Endean ED, Mallon LI, Minion DJ, Kwolek CJ and Schwarcz TH. Telemedicine in vascular surgery: does it work? American Journal of Surgery 2001;67:334–40; discussion 340–31.

Latifi R, Hadeed GJ, Rhee P, O’Keeffe T, Friese RS, Wynne JL, et al. Initial experiences and outcomes of telepresence in the management of trauma and emergency surgical patients. American Journal of Surgery 2009;198:905–10. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.08.011. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.08.011.

Kaczmarek BF, Trinh QD, Menon M and Rogers CG. Tablet telerounding. Urology 2012;80:1383–88. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.060. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.06.060.

Ellison LM, Nguyen M, Fabrizio MD, Soh A, Permpongkosol S and Kavoussi LR. Postoperative robotic telerounding: a multicenter randomized assessment of patient outcomes and satisfaction. Archives of Surgery 2007;142:1177–81; discussion 1181. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.142.12.1177. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.142.12.1177.

Gandsas A, Parekh M, Bleech MM and Tong DA. Robotic telepresence: profit analysis in reducing length of stay after laparoscopic gastric bypass. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2007;205:72–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.070. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.01.070.

Petelin JB, Nelson ME and Goodman J. Deployment and early experience with remote-presence patient care in a community hospital. Surgical Endoscopy 2007;21:53–6. doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0261-z. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-005-0261-z.

Sucher JF, Todd SR, Jones SL, Throckmorton T, Turner KL and Moore FA. Robotic telepresence: a helpful adjunct that is viewed favorably by critically ill surgical patients. American Journal of Surgery 2011;202:843–47. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.001. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.001.

Agha Z, Schapira RM, Laud PW, McNutt G and Roter DL. Patient satisfaction with physician-patient communication during telemedicine. Telemedicine Journal and e-health 2009;15:830–39. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0030. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2009.0030.

Wiseman JT, Fernandes-Taylor S, Barnes ML, Tomsejova A, Saunders RS and Kent KC. Conceptualizing smartphone use in outpatient wound assessment: patients’ and caregivers’ willingness to use technology. Journal of Surgical Research 2015;198:245–51. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.05.011. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.05.011.

Kummerow Broman K, Oyefule OO, Phillips SE, Baucom RB, Holzman MD, Sharp KW, et al. Postoperative care using a secure online patient portal: changing the (inter)face of general surgery. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2015;221:1057–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.08.429. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2015.08.429.

Barrett KM, Pizzi MA, Kesari V, TerKonda SP, Mauricio EA, Silvers SM, et al. Ambulance-based assessment of NIH Stroke Scale with telemedicine: a feasibility pilot study. J Telemed Telecare 2017;23(4):476–83. doi: 10.1177/1357633X16648490. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16648490.

Chen J, Sun D, Yang W, Liu M, Zhang S, Peng J and Ren C. Clinical and economic outcomes of telemedicine programs in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2017;885066617726942. doi: 10.1177/0885066617726942. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066617726942.

Hawkins HA, Lilly CM, Kaster DA, Groves RH and Khurana H. ICU telemedicine comanagement methods and length of stay. Chest 2016;150:314–19. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.030. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2016.03.030.

Steinman M, Morbeck RA, Pires PV, Abreu Filho CA, Andrade AHV, Terra JCC, et al. Impact of telemedicine in hospital culture and its consequences on quality of care and safety. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2015;13:580–86. doi: 10.1590/S1679-45082015GS2893. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082015GS2893.

Kleinpell R, Barden C, Rincon T, McCarthy M and Zapatochny Rufo RJ. Assessing the impact of telemedicine on nursing care in intensive care units. American Journal of Critical Care 2016;25:e14–20. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2016808. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2016808.

Lin CT, Albertson GA, Schilling LM, Cyran EM, Anderson SN, Ware L, et al. Is patients’ perception of time spent with the physician a determinant of ambulatory patient satisfaction? Archives of Internal Medicine 2001;161:1437–42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.11.1437. PMid:11386893.

Chen H, Li M, Wang J, Xue C, Ding T, Nong X, et al. Factors influencing inpatients’ satisfaction with hospitalization service in public hospitals in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Patient Prefer Adherence 2016;10:469–77. doi: 10.2147/PPA.S98095. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S98095.

Narasimha S, Madathil KC, Agnisarman S, Rogers H, Welch B, Ashok A, et al. Designing telemedicine systems for geriatric patients: a review of the usability studies. Telemedicine Journal and e-health 2016;23(6):459–72. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2016.0178. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2016.0178.

Lazzara EH, Benishek LE, Patzer B, Gregory ME, Hughes AM, Heyne K, et al. Utilizing telemedicine in the trauma intensive care unit: does it impact teamwork? Telemedicine Journal and e-health 2015;21:670–76. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2014.0074. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2014.0074.

Marini CP, Ritter G, Sharma C, McNelis J, Goldberg M and Barrera R. The effect of robotic telerounding in the surgical intensive care units impact on medical education. Journal of Robotic Surgery 2015;9:51–6. doi: 10.1007/s11701-014-0489-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-014-0489-5.

Mullen-Fortino M, DiMartino J, Entrikin L, Mulliner S, Hanson CW and Kahn JM. Bedside nurses’ perceptions of intensive care unit telemedicine. American Journal of Critical Care 2012;21:24–31. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2012801. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2012801.

Choi BC and Pak AW. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Preventing Chronic Disease 2005;2:A13.

Dassa C LJ, Blais R, Potvin D and Gauthier N. Effects of a neutral answer choice on the reliability and validity of attitude and opinion items. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 1997;12(2):61–80.

Carney DR and Banaji MR. First is best. PLoS One 2012;7:e35088. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035088. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035088.

Reynolds EM, Grujovski A, Wright T, Foster M, and Neal Reynolds H. Utilization of robotic “remote presence” technology within North American intensive care units. Telemedicine Journal and e-health 2012;18:507–15. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2011.0206. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2011.0206.

Ramnath VR, Ho L, Maggio LA and Khazeni N. Centralized monitoring and virtual consultant models of tele-ICU care: a systematic review. Telemedicine Journal and e-health 2014;20:936–61. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0352. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0352.

Gambadauro P and Torrejón R. The “tele” factor in surgery today and tomorrow: implications for surgical training and education. Surgery Today 2013;43:115–22. doi: 10.1007/s00595-012-0267-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0267-9.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v25i1.982

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


This is an open access journal, which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or their institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal starting from Volume 21 without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open accessFor permission regarding papers published in previous volumes, please contact us.

Privacy statement: The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.

Online ISSN 2058-4563 - Print ISSN 2058-4555. Published by BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT