ArticlePerspectives in health information managemen2015
Robotic Telepresence in a Medical Intensive Care Unit--Clinicians' Perceptions.
Article in Perspectives in health information managemen, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Use of Robots in Critical Care: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Clinicians' Perceptions and Potential Applications of Robotics for Task Automation in Critical Care: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Robotics in Simulated COVID-19 Patient Room for Health Care Worker Effector Tasks: Preliminary, Feasibility Experiments.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2021Review
- Robotics and AI for Teleoperation, Tele-Assessment, and Tele-Training for Surgery in the Era of COVID-19: Existing Challenges, and Future Vision.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
- Implementation of robotic devices in nursing care. Barriers and facilitators: an integrative review.BMJ open · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRobotic telepresence has been used for outsourcing of healthcare services for more than a decade; however, its use within an academic medical department is not yet widespread. Intensive care unit (ICU) robots can be used to increase access to off-site supervising physicians and other specialists, reducing possible wait time for difficult admissions and procedures.
objectiveTo study the use of ICU robots through a pilot program in an academic hospital and examine provider attitudes toward the usability and effectiveness of an ICU robot. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was done as a postinterventional cross-sectional seven-question survey in a medical ICU in an urban academic hospital. Participants were attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and respiratory therapists.
resultsUsers of the ICU robot reported satisfaction with communication, and improved patient care. They also reported perceived improved quality of care with the use of the robot.
conclusionsFindings show the importance of a whole-team approach to the installation and implementation of an ICU robot. The ICU robot is an effective tool when it is used to visualize and communicate with patients, bedside staff, and families. However, a number of providers are still not trained or have not been shown how to use the ICU robot, which affects the overall utilization rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26396554PMC4558480What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.