Background: Society is facing a global shortage of 17 million health care workers, along with increasing health care demands from a growing number of older adults. Social robots are being considered as solutions to part of this problem. Objective: Our objective is to evaluate the quality of care perceived by patients and caregivers for an integrated care pathway in an outpatient clinic using a social robot for patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) interviews versus the currently used professional interviews. Methods: A multicenter, two-parallel-group, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial was used to test for noninferiority of the quality of care delivered through robot-assisted care. The randomization was performed using a computer-generated table. The setting consisted of two outpatient clinics, and the study took place from July to December 2019. Of 419 patients who visited the participating outpatient clinics, 110 older patients met the criteria for recruitment. Inclusion criteria were the ability to speak and read Dutch and being assisted by a participating health care professional. Exclusion criteria were serious hearing or vision problems, serious cognitive problems, and paranoia or similar psychiatric problems. The intervention consisted of a social robot conducting a 36-item PROM. As the main outcome measure, the customized Consumer Quality Index (CQI) was used, as reported by patients and caregivers for the outpatient pathway of care. Results: In total, 75 intermediately frail older patients were included in the study, randomly assigned to the intervention and control groups, and processed: 36 female (48%) and 39 male (52%); mean age 77.4 years (SD 7.3), range 60-91 years. There was no significant difference in the total patient CQI scores between the patients included in the robot-assisted care pathway (mean 9.27, SD 0.65, n=37) and those in the control group (mean 9.00, SD 0.70, n=38): P=.08, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.58. There was no significant difference in the total CQI scores between caregivers in the intervention group (mean 9.21, SD 0.76, n=30) and those in the control group (mean 9.09, SD 0.60, n=35): P=.47, 95% CI –0.21 to 0.46. No harm or unintended effects occurred. Conclusions: Geriatric patients and their informal caregivers valued robot-assisted and nonrobot-assisted care pathways equally. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789

This is the abstract only. Read the full article on the JMIR site. JMIR is the leading open access journal for eHealth and healthcare in the Internet age.

中文翻译：

---

在社交机器人的访谈协助下，综合护理途径中的老年患者和护理人员感知的护理质量：非劣效性随机对照试验。

背景：社会正面临着全球1,700万医务工作者的短缺，以及越来越多的老年人对医疗的需求不断增加。社会机器人被视为解决此问题的一部分。目的：我们的目标是使用社交机器人对患者进行报告的结果测量（PROM）访谈与当前使用的专业访谈进行比较，以评估门诊患者对综合护理途径的患者和护理人员的护理质量。方法：采用多中心，两组平行，无盲，随机对照的试验来检验通过机器人辅助护理所提供的护理质量的不劣性。使用计算机生成的表格进行随机化。该设置包括两个门诊诊所，该研究于2019年7月至2019年12月进行。在419位就诊的门诊患者中，有110位年龄较大的患者符合募集标准。纳入标准是说和读荷兰语的能力，并由参与的医疗保健专业人员协助。排除标准为严重的听力或视力问题，严重的认知问题以及偏执狂或类似的精神病问题。干预措施包括一个社交机器人进行36个项目的PROM。作为主要的结局指标，使用了定制的消费者质量指数（CQI），如患者和护理人员所报告的门诊护理路径。结果：总共有75名中度衰弱的老年患者被纳入研究，随机分为干预组和对照组，并进行了治疗：女性36例（48％），男性39例（52％）。平均年龄77.4岁（SD 7.3），范围60-91岁。机器人辅助治疗途径中的患者（平均值为9.27，SD为0.65，n = 37）与对照组中的患者（平均值为9.00，SD 0.70，n = 38）之间的患者总CQI得分无显着差异。 ：P = .08，95％CI –0.04至0.58。干预组（平均9.21，SD 0.76，n = 30）与对照组（平均9.09，SD 0.60，n = 35）之间的护理人员总CQI得分无显着差异：P = .47， 95％CI –0.21至0.46。没有发生伤害或意外影响。结论：老年患者及其非正式护理人员对机器人辅助和非机器人辅助的护理途径同样重视。试用注册：ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789 机器人辅助治疗途径中的患者（平均值为9.27，SD为0.65，n = 37）与对照组中的患者（平均值为9.00，SD 0.70，n = 38）之间的患者总CQI得分无显着差异。 ：P = .08，95％CI –0.04至0.58。干预组（平均9.21，SD 0.76，n = 30）与对照组（平均9.09，SD 0.60，n = 35）之间的护理人员总CQI得分无显着差异：P = .47， 95％CI –0.21至0.46。没有发生伤害或意外影响。结论：老年患者及其非正式护理人员对机器人辅助和非机器人辅助的护理途径同样重视。试用注册：ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789 机器人辅助治疗途径中的患者（平均值为9.27，SD为0.65，n = 37）与对照组中的患者（平均值为9.00，SD 0.70，n = 38）之间的患者总CQI得分无显着差异。 ：P = .08，95％CI –0.04至0.58。干预组（平均9.21，SD 0.76，n = 30）与对照组（平均9.09，SD 0.60，n = 35）之间的护理人员总CQI得分无显着差异：P = .47， 95％CI –0.21至0.46。没有发生伤害或意外影响。结论：老年患者及其非正式护理人员对机器人辅助和非机器人辅助的护理途径同样重视。试用注册：ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789 65岁，n = 37）和对照组（平均9.00，SD 0.70，n = 38）：P = .08，95％CI –0.04至0.58。干预组（平均9.21，SD 0.76，n = 30）与对照组（平均9.09，SD 0.60，n = 35）之间的护理人员总CQI得分无显着差异：P = .47， 95％CI –0.21至0.46。没有发生伤害或意外影响。结论：老年患者及其非正式护理人员对机器人辅助和非机器人辅助的护理途径同样重视。试用注册：ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789 65岁，n = 37）和对照组（平均9.00，SD 0.70，n = 38）：P = .08，95％CI –0.04至0.58。干预组（平均9.21，SD 0.76，n = 30）和对照组（平均9.09，SD 0.60，n = 35）之间的护理人员的总CQI得分无显着差异：P = .47， 95％CI –0.21至0.46。没有发生伤害或意外影响。结论：老年患者及其非正式护理人员对机器人辅助和非机器人辅助的护理途径同样重视。试用注册：ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789 SD 0.60，n = 35）：P = .47，95％CI –0.21至0.46。没有发生伤害或意外影响。结论：老年患者及其非正式护理人员对机器人辅助和非机器人辅助的护理途径同样重视。试用注册：ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789 SD 0.60，n = 35）：P = .47，95％CI –0.21至0.46。没有发生伤害或意外影响。结论：老年患者及其非正式护理人员对机器人辅助和非机器人辅助的护理途径同样重视。试用注册：ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03857789；https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03857789

这仅仅是抽象的。阅读JMIR网站上的全文。JMIR是互联网时代电子健康和医疗保健领域领先的开放获取期刊。