Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 53–56 | Cite as

Deployment and early experience with remote-presence patient care in a community hospital

  • J. B. Petelin
  • M. E. Nelson
  • J. Goodman
Original Article



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.


Remote control Remote-presence interaction Robot RP6 Telemedicine Telerounding Remote presence 


  1. 1.
    Ellison LM, Pinto PA, Kim F, Ong AM, Patriciu A, Stoianovici D, Rubin H, Jarrett T, Kavoussi LR (2004) Telerounding and patient satisfaction after surgery. J Am Coll Surg 199: 523–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Clemmer TP, Weaver LK, Orme JF, Lloyd JF, Burke JP (1998) A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other anti-infective agents. N Engl J Med 338: 232–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Field MJ, Grigsby J (2002) Telemedicine and remote patient monitoring. JAMA 288: 4: 423–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gandsas A, McIntire K, Park A (2004) Live broadcast of laparoscopic surgery to handheld computers. Surg Endosc: 18: 997–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Health Care Financing Administration. Program memorandum intermediaries and carriers: revision of Medicare reimbursement for telehealth services. Transmittal AB-01-69. Accessed May 1, 2001 at: Accessibility verified June 6, 2002
  6. 6.
    Iregui M, Ward S, Clinikscale D, Clayton D, Kollef MH (2002) Use of a handheld computer by respiratory care practitioners to improve the efficiency of weaning patients from mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med: 30: 2038–2043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jacobsen G, Elli F, Horgan S (2004) Robotic surgery update. Surg Endosc 18: 1186–1191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lapinsky SE, Weshler, Mehta S, Varkul M, Hallett B, Stewart TE (2001) Handheld computers in critical care. Crit Care Med 5: 227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morris AH (2002) Decision support and safety of clinical environments. Qual Safe Health Care 11: 69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rosenfeld BA, Dorman T, Breslow MJ, Pronovost P, Jenckes M, Zhang N, Andreson G, Rubin H (2000) Intensive care unit telemedicine: alternate paradigm for providing continuous intensivist care. Crit Care Med: 28: 3925–3931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SAGES. Guidelines for the surgical practice of telemedicine:1996, 1999, 2004. Retrieved April 22, 2006 at php?doc=21
  12. 12.
    Van Eaton EG, Horvath KD, Lober WB, Rossini AJ, Pellegrini CA (2005) A randomized, controlled trial evaluating the impact of a computerized rounding and sing-out system on continuity of care and resident work hours. J Am Coll Surg 200: 538–545PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City Kansas, Surgix Minimally Invasive Surgery InstituteKansas City

Personalised recommendations