The effect of robotic telerounding in the surgical intensive care units impact on medical education

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.