Comparison of Healthcare Workers Transferring Patients Using Either Conventional Or Robotic Wheelchairs: Kinematic, Electromyographic, and Electrocardiographic Analyses

Safety and feasibility of in-hospital autonomous transportation using a driverless mobility for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: preliminary clinical study to achieve mobility as a service in medical care

BACKGROUND

Recent advancements in and the proliferation of autonomous mobility technology, such as intelligent wheelchairs, have made it possible to provide mobility services for patients with reduced mobility due to musculoskeletal disorders. In the present study, we conducted a preliminary clinical study to assess the safety and feasibility of in-hospital autonomous transportation using a driverless mobility (wheelchair) for patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

From January to February 2022, 51 patients with musculoskeletal disorders exhibiting gait disturbance who presented to our institution were included in the present study. Driverless mobility rides were conducted over a straight-line distance of 100 m from the orthopaedic outpatient reception to the payment counter after the outpatient consultation. We assessed the quality of life using an EQ-5D-5 L index and pain using a VAS score before riding the mobility to investigate the patient's condition. After the ride, a questionnaire survey was conducted to assess patient satisfaction on a 5-point scale. In addition, adverse events during the mobility ride were investigated.

RESULTS

Overall satisfaction levels showed that 44 out of 51 (86%) patients rated the level as 3 or higher. There were no significant differences in the level of satisfaction based on the cause of disorders or EQ-5D-5 L Index. Among 19 patients who rated the level of satisfaction as 2-3, the ratio of postoperative patients and those with pain tended to be higher (p < 0.05). While 26 of 51 (51%) patients reported moments of feeling unsafe during the mobility ride, no actual adverse events, such as collisions, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

An in-hospital autonomous transportation service using a driverless mobility for patients with musculoskeletal disorders demonstrated high satisfaction levels and was safe with no severe adverse events observed. The expansion of autonomous mobility deployment is expected to achieve mobility as a service in medical care.

Evaluation of a motorised patient transfer device based on perceived workload, technology acceptance, and emotional states

PURPOSE

The high prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among healthcare workers is partly attributed to the low adoption of patient transfer assistive devices. This study aimed to evaluate the nurses' perceived workload, technology acceptance, and emotional states during the use of the sliding board (SB) and mechanical intervention in the form of a Motorised Patient Transfer Device (MPTD).

METHODS

The SB and MPTD activities were performed by seven nurses on a simulated patient. The nurses' facial expressions were recorded during the trial. The NASA Task Load Index and technology acceptance questionnaire were also assessed.

RESULTS

The MPTD significantly reduced the mean overall NASA-TLX score by 68.7% (p = 0.004) and increased the overall acceptance score (median = 8.30) by 21.2% (p = 0.016) when compared to the SB (median = 6.85). All the subjects reported positive feelings towards MPTD. However, facial expression analysis showed that the nurses had a significantly higher peak density of fear while using MPTD (p = 0.016). Besides, there was no improvement in the negative valence and contempt emotion compared to the SB.

CONCLUSION

Overall, nurses showed positive perceptions and acceptance of MPTD even when they experienced negative emotions.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThe Motorised Patient Transfer Device (MPTD) reduced the perceived workload of nurses and showed a higher acceptance level compared to the commonly used baseline device (SB).Factors that attributed to the nurses' negative emotions can be used to improve technology and patient transfer processes.More training should be given to familiarise the health practitioners with the new assistive device to reduce their fear of technology.

Person transfer assist systems: a literature review

OBJECTIVE

Novel developments in the robotics field have produced systems that can support person wheelchair transfers, maximize safety and reduce caregiver burden. The purpose of this study was to identify and describe these systems, their usability (or satisfaction), the context for which they have been or can be used and how they have been evaluated to determine evidence for their effectiveness.

METHOD

Available research on Person Transfer Assist Systems (PTAS) was systematically gathered using similar standards to the PRISMA guidelines. The search terms were derived from common terms and via exploring similar review articles. Initial search terms displayed 1330 articles and by using the inclusion/exclusion criteria 96 articles were selected for abstract review. After full- text reviewing 48 articles were included.

RESULTS

29 articles concerned research in robotic transfer systems, 10 articles used both ceiling and floor-mounted lifts and 9 articles used only floor-mounted lifts as an intervention/control group. The results of this analysis identified a few usability evaluations for robotic transfer prototypes, especially ones comparing prototypes to existing marketed devices.

CONCLUSION

Robotic device research is a recent development within assistive technology. Whilst usability evaluations provided evidence that a robotic device will provide better service to the user, the sample number of subjects used are minimal in comparison to any of the intervention/control group articles. Experimental studies between PTASs are required to support technological advancements. Caregiver injury risk has been the focus for most of the comparison articles; however, few articles focus on the implications to the person.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONCeiling mounted lifts are preferred over floor-based lifts due to lower injury rates.Many robotic transfer systems have been developed; however, there is a paucity of quantitative and qualitative studies.Based on the results of this review, rehabilitation settings are recommended to use ceiling over floor assist systems, and it is recommended to provide training on using devices to assist with patient transfers to lower the risk of injuries.

Measurement of Upper Limb Range of Motion Using Wearable Sensors: A Systematic Review

Background

Wearable sensors are portable measurement tools that are becoming increasingly popular for the measurement of joint angle in the upper limb. With many brands emerging on the market, each with variations in hardware and protocols, evidence to inform selection and application is needed. Therefore, the objectives of this review were related to the use of wearable sensors to calculate upper limb joint angle. We aimed to describe (i) the characteristics of commercial and custom wearable sensors, (ii) the populations for whom researchers have adopted wearable sensors, and (iii) their established psychometric properties.

Methods

A systematic review of literature was undertaken using the following data bases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, IEEE, and Scopus. Studies were eligible if they met the following criteria: (i) involved humans and/or robotic devices, (ii) involved the application or simulation of wearable sensors on the upper limb, and (iii) calculated a joint angle.

Results

Of 2191 records identified, 66 met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies compared wearable sensors to a robotic device and 22 studies compared to a motion analysis system. Commercial (n = 13) and custom (n = 7) wearable sensors were identified, each with variations in placement, calibration methods, and fusion algorithms, which were demonstrated to influence accuracy.

Conclusion

Wearable sensors have potential as viable instruments for measurement of joint angle in the upper limb during active movement. Currently, customised application (i.e. calibration and angle calculation methods) is required to achieve sufficient accuracy (error <  5°). Additional research and standardisation is required to guide clinical application.

Trial Registration

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017059935).