Cargando…

Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers face a risk of infection during aerosol-generating procedures, such as nasal swabbing. Robot-assisted nasopharyngeal sampling aims to minimize this risk and reduce stress for healthcare providers. However, its effectiveness and safety require validation. METHODS: We co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Jiun-Hao, Hsieh, Sung-huai, Chen, Chieh‐Hsiao, Huang, Wen-Kuan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10597818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37886772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20757
_version_ 1785125428021690368
author Yu, Jiun-Hao
Hsieh, Sung-huai
Chen, Chieh‐Hsiao
Huang, Wen-Kuan
author_facet Yu, Jiun-Hao
Hsieh, Sung-huai
Chen, Chieh‐Hsiao
Huang, Wen-Kuan
author_sort Yu, Jiun-Hao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers face a risk of infection during aerosol-generating procedures, such as nasal swabbing. Robot-assisted nasopharyngeal sampling aims to minimize this risk and reduce stress for healthcare providers. However, its effectiveness and safety require validation. METHODS: We conducted a controlled trial with 80 subjects at two teaching hospitals and compared robot-collected vs manually-collected nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcomes included specimen quality and success rate of nasopharyngeal swab collection. We also recorded the pain index, duration of the collection, and psychological stress using a post-collection questionnaire. RESULTS: During the study period, from September 23 to October 27, 2020, 40 subjects were enrolled in both the robotic and manual groups. The cycle threshold (Ct) value for nasopharyngeal specimens was statistically higher in the robotic group compared to the manual group (30.9 vs 28.0, p < 0.01). Both groups had Ct values under 35, indicating good quality specimens. In the robotic group, 3 out of 40 subjects required a second attempt at specimen collection, resulting in a success rate of 92.5 %. Further, although the pain levels were lower in the robotic group, the difference was not statistically significant (2.8 vs 3.6, p = 0.07). The manual group had a shorter sampling time, which was 29 s (201 vs 29, p < 0.05). However, when factoring in the time needed to put on personal protective equipment, the average time for the manual group increased to 251 s (201 vs 251, p < 0.05). Participants' questionnaire results show comparable psychological stress in both groups. Medical staff expressed that using a robot would reduce their psychological stress. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a safe and effective robotic technology for collecting nasopharyngeal specimens without face-to-face contact, which may reduce the stress of physicians and nurses. This technology can also be optimized for efficiency, making it useful in situations where droplet-transmitted infectious diseases are a concern.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10597818
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105978182023-10-26 Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection Yu, Jiun-Hao Hsieh, Sung-huai Chen, Chieh‐Hsiao Huang, Wen-Kuan Heliyon Research Article BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers face a risk of infection during aerosol-generating procedures, such as nasal swabbing. Robot-assisted nasopharyngeal sampling aims to minimize this risk and reduce stress for healthcare providers. However, its effectiveness and safety require validation. METHODS: We conducted a controlled trial with 80 subjects at two teaching hospitals and compared robot-collected vs manually-collected nasopharyngeal swabs. The primary outcomes included specimen quality and success rate of nasopharyngeal swab collection. We also recorded the pain index, duration of the collection, and psychological stress using a post-collection questionnaire. RESULTS: During the study period, from September 23 to October 27, 2020, 40 subjects were enrolled in both the robotic and manual groups. The cycle threshold (Ct) value for nasopharyngeal specimens was statistically higher in the robotic group compared to the manual group (30.9 vs 28.0, p < 0.01). Both groups had Ct values under 35, indicating good quality specimens. In the robotic group, 3 out of 40 subjects required a second attempt at specimen collection, resulting in a success rate of 92.5 %. Further, although the pain levels were lower in the robotic group, the difference was not statistically significant (2.8 vs 3.6, p = 0.07). The manual group had a shorter sampling time, which was 29 s (201 vs 29, p < 0.05). However, when factoring in the time needed to put on personal protective equipment, the average time for the manual group increased to 251 s (201 vs 251, p < 0.05). Participants' questionnaire results show comparable psychological stress in both groups. Medical staff expressed that using a robot would reduce their psychological stress. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a safe and effective robotic technology for collecting nasopharyngeal specimens without face-to-face contact, which may reduce the stress of physicians and nurses. This technology can also be optimized for efficiency, making it useful in situations where droplet-transmitted infectious diseases are a concern. Elsevier 2023-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10597818/ /pubmed/37886772 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20757 Text en © 2023 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Yu, Jiun-Hao
Hsieh, Sung-huai
Chen, Chieh‐Hsiao
Huang, Wen-Kuan
Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection
title Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection
title_full Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection
title_fullStr Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection
title_short Comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection
title_sort comparison of the safety, effectiveness, and usability of swab robot vs. manual nasopharyngeal specimen collection
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10597818/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37886772
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20757
work_keys_str_mv AT yujiunhao comparisonofthesafetyeffectivenessandusabilityofswabrobotvsmanualnasopharyngealspecimencollection
AT hsiehsunghuai comparisonofthesafetyeffectivenessandusabilityofswabrobotvsmanualnasopharyngealspecimencollection
AT chenchiehhsiao comparisonofthesafetyeffectivenessandusabilityofswabrobotvsmanualnasopharyngealspecimencollection
AT huangwenkuan comparisonofthesafetyeffectivenessandusabilityofswabrobotvsmanualnasopharyngealspecimencollection