Robots rounding
Where are we headed in the 21st century with medicine and interpersonal relationships?In a recent study published in the Archives of Surgery they looked at the use of robotic "telerounding" at three academic medical centers.
This involved the use of the 5-foot-5-inch robot consisting of a computerized motor base, a flat-screen monitor, a microphone, and a digital camera that can zoom in to read a chart, study a wound or pick up facial expressions.
A physician operates the robot by remote control at a computer workstation equipped with a digital camera, microphone, and joystick. This technology gives live, two-way audio and visual communication between doctor and patient.
This study involved 270 patients who had undergone a urologic procedure and were than divided into two groups; one group received a bedside visit from their attending surgeon and the other group was rounded on by their attending surgeon using the robot.
The study found that telerounding proved no better or no worse than traditional rounding in terms of patient safety.
Each group had the same level of post-surgical complications and pain and the surgeons who rounded on patients remotely didn't miss any complications, nor were they late in identifying them.
The average length of hospital stay for each group was 2.8 days.
A surprising finding for the researchers was the patient-satisfaction scores.
The scores for the telerounding group basically matched those for the group seen in person by their surgeon.
Two-thirds of patients who encountered the rounding robot said it should become a regular part of hospital care and the same percentage said they'd prefer telerounding by their regular doctor over an in-person visit by a partner.
Continuity of care is one of the arguments that are used for this kind of videoconferencing.
Proponents also tout the technology as a way to extend the expertise of big-city medical specialists to outlying hospitals.
Critics counter that a rounding robot dehumanizes patient care.
There were some commentaries with the study that think the importance of human touch is not as important as a familiar face and voice on the other end.
Could the results of this study just be a novelty factor of the robot and will patients really not miss the true human interaction?
I believe we are relational beings and deep down, we strive for real interpersonal relationships with caregivers we trust.
Labels: relationships, robots, Telemedicine
posted by Anonymous at 5:54 AM
4 Comments:
Having taken classes in college on how to conduct research studies, I am familiar with the process. I also have worked for a company in which I helped conduct research in the field of medicine.
My experience has caused me to take a jaded view of research study conclusions. Far too often the research is funded...or in some way...connected with a company who has a gain to be realized from the outcome of the study.
As a result I have been very, very cautious to investigate the funding source and any other connection to a study being performed. I know from personal experience that the outcome of a study is often predetermined. I know this sounds like sour grapes and negative, but it is also reality.
It would be interesting to investigate the background behind this study. I for one want to see my physician and want him/her making decisions regarding my care.
I totally agree. When we have drug reps come to the office with the newest study, I take it with a grain of salt.
Study results are probably close to 99% predetermined and it is very rare to have it show something different than was expected.
RE: "Study results are probably close to 99% predetermined and it is very rare to have it show something different than was expected."
Sounds like a description of the "science" involved in the Creationism Museum over in Kentucky.
A human must still accompany the robot on it's rounds. Most probably this will be the paitent's nurse. One more duty to add to the nurses already overloaded day.
Post a Comment
<< Home