Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Family-centered rounds (FCR) are fundamental to pediatric inpatient care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to design and implement a virtual family-centered rounds (vFCR) process that allowed continuation of inpatient rounds while following physical distancing guidelines and preserving personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods A multidisciplinary team developed the vFCR process using a participatory design approach. From April through July 2020, quality improvement methods were used to iteratively evaluate and improve the process. Outcome measures included satisfaction, perceived effectiveness, and perceived usefulness of vFCR. Data were collected via questionnaire distributed to patients, families, staff and medical staff, and analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. Virtual auditors monitored time per patient round and transition time between patients as balancing measures. Results Seventy-four percent (51/69) of health care providers surveyed and 79% (26/33) of patients and families were satisfied or very satisfied with vFCR. Eighty eight percent (61/69) of health care providers and 88% (29/33) of patients and families felt vFCR were useful. Audits revealed an average vFCR duration of 8.4 min (SD = 3.9) for a single patient round and transition time between patients averaged 2.9 min (SD = 2.6). Conclusion Virtual family-centered rounds are an acceptable alternative to in-person FCR in a pandemic scenario, yielding high levels of stakeholder satisfaction and support. We believe vFCR are a useful method to support inpatient rounds, physical distancing, and preservation of PPE that may also be valuable beyond the pandemic. A rigorous process evaluation of vFCR is underway.

The purpose of this study was to assess how surgical intensive care unit (SICU) patients and their families would perceive robotic telepresence. We hypothesized that they would view such technology positively. This research was an Institutional Review Board–approved prospective observational study. Our robotic telepresence program augmented the SICU multidisciplinary team rounding process. We anonymously surveyed patients and their families on their perceptions. Those who interacted at least once with the robot served as our participant base. Twenty-four patients and 26 family members completed the survey. Ninety-two percent of respondents were comfortable with the robot, and 84% believed communication was “easy.” Ninety percent did not perceive the robot as “annoying” and 92% did not believe that “the doctor cared less about them” because of the robot. Ninety-two percent of respondents supported the continued use of the robot. Robotic telepresence was viewed positively by patients and their families in the SICU. Furthermore, they believed the robot was beneficial to their care and indicated their support for its continued use.

Robotic telerounding is effective from the standpoint of patients’ satisfaction and patients’ care in teaching and community hospitals. However, the impact of robotic telerounding by the intensivist rounding remotely in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU), on patients’ outcome and on the education of medical students physician assistants and surgical residents, as well as on nurses’ satisfaction has not been studied. Prospective evaluation of robotic telerounding (RT) using a Likert Scale measuring tool to assess whether it can replace conventional rounding (CR) from the standpoint of patients’ care and outcome, nursing satisfaction, and educational effectiveness. RT did not have a negative impact on patients’ outcome during the study interval: mortality 5/42 (12 %) versus 6/37 (16 %), RT versus CR, respectively, p  = 0.747. The intensivists rounding in the SICU were satisfied with their ability to deliver the same patients’ care remotely (Likert score 4.4 ± 0.2). The educational experience of medical students, physicia assistants, and surgical residents was not affected by RT (average Likert score 4.5 ± 0.2, 3.9 ± 0.4, and 4.4 ± 0.4 for surgical residents, medical students and PAs, respectively, p  > 0.05). However, as shown by a Likert score of 3.5 ± 1.0, RT did not meet nurses’ expectations from several standpoints. Intensivists regard robotic telerounding as an effective alternative to conventional rounding from the standpoint of patients’ care and teaching. Medical students, physician assistants (PA’s), and surgical residents do not believe that RT compromises their education. Despite similar patients’ outcome, nurses have a less favorable opinion of RT; they believe that the physical presence of the intensivist is favorable at all times.

The introduction of the RP6 (InTouch Health, Santa Barbara, CA, USA) remote-presence \"robot\" appears to offer a useful telemedicine device. The authors describe the deployment and early experience with the RP6 in a community hospital and provided a live demonstration of the system on April 16, 2005 during the Emerging Technologies Session of the 2005 SAGES Meeting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The RP6 is a 5-ft 4-in. tall, 215-pound robot that can be remotely controlled from an appropriately configured computer located anywhere on the Internet (i.e., on this planet). The system is composed of a control station (a computer at the central station), a mechanical robot, a wireless network (at the remote facility: the hospital), and a high-speed Internet connection at both the remote (hospital) and central locations. The robot itself houses a rechargeable power supply. Its hardware and software allows communication over the Internet with the central station, interpretation of commands from the central station, and conversion of the commands into mechanical and nonmechanical actions at the remote location, which are communicated back to the central station over the Internet. The RP6 system allows the central party (e.g., physician) to control the movements of the robot itself, see and hear at the remote location (hospital), and be seen and heard at the remote location (hospital) while not physically there. Deployment of the RP6 system at the hospital was accomplished in less than a day. The wireless network at the institution was already in place. The control station setup time ranged from 1 to 4 h and was dependent primarily on the quality of the Internet connection (bandwidth) at the remote locations. Patients who visited with the RP6 on their discharge day could be discharged more than 4 h earlier than with conventional visits, thereby freeing up hospital beds on a busy med-surg floor. Patient visits during \"off hours\" (nights and weekends) were three times more efficient than conventional visits during these times (20 min per visit vs 40-min round trip travel + 20-min visit). Patients and nursing personnel both expressed tremendous satisfaction with the remote-presence interaction. The authors' early experience suggests a significant benefit to patients, hospitals, and physicians with the use of RP6. The implications for future development are enormous.