机器人智能化内镜转运系统在消化内镜中心的应用效果

Clinical utility of a robotic intelligent endoscope transportation system in the digestive endoscopy center

摘要:

目的 评价智能化内镜转运系统在消化内镜中心的应用价值。方法 采用平行分组对照试验，以机器人智能化内镜转运系统为试验组（机器人组）、传统人工内镜转运为对照组（人工组），并于2024年6月1日至2024年12月31日在山东大学齐鲁医院消化内镜中心门诊区域对使用效果进行评价。对2组的响应时间、内镜转运速度、人力成本效益等进行数据统计，并引入全职当量对试验组应用效能进行量化，评估2组在洁污分离、闭环追溯、护理人员满意度等方面的表现。结果 研究共计纳入60 206次智能化内镜转运与60 485次人工转运数据。机器人组发放响应时间（51.08±14.97）s，明显短于人工组的（54.44±13.61）s，差异有统计学意义（t=35.8，P<0.001）；机器人组回收响应时间（32.52±11.26）s，明显短于人工组的（40.20±11.40）s，差异有统计学意义（t=103.93，P<0.001）。机器人组在148 d运行周期内，转运成功60 104次，失败102次，成功率达99.83%（60 104/60 206），失败率为0.17%（102/60 206），失败的主要原因为机器人无线网络断开、机器人找寻路径失败、机器人故障，平均每台机器人月故障次数1.05次，无差错等不良事件发生。人工组在相同时间段内，转运成功60 043次，失败442次，成功率为99.26%（60 043/60 485），失败率为0.74%（442/60 485）。机器人组的内镜转运满意度评分为（4.65±0.55）分，明显高于人工组的（3.97±0.98）分，差异有统计学意义（t=96.5，P<0.001）；机器人组的转运流程满意度评分为（4.71±0.59）分，明显高于人工组的（3.90±1.04）分，差异有统计学意义（t=210.3，P<0.001）；机器人组的工作强度评分为（4.06±0.77）分，明显低于人工组的（4.48±0.63）分，差异有统计学意义（t=59.9，P=0.025）。经计算后得出，使用机器人智慧化内镜转运系统可节省约3.68个人工全职当量，每年可节省约65.70万元的护理人力成本。结论 消化内镜中心使用机器人智能化内镜转运系统可以提高工作效率、降低护理人力成本及工作体力强度、提升工作体验感及满意度；同时，可实现全流程智能化追溯，为过程监管及结果处置提供科学的管理依据，是安全有效、值得推广应用的内镜转运方式。

Abstract:

Objective To evaluate the clinical utility of an intelligent endoscope transportation system in the digestive endoscopy center. Methods A parallel-group controlled trial was conducted at Digestive Endoscopy Center of Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from June 1st to December 31st 2024, comparing robotic intelligent endoscope transport (experimental group) versus manual transport (control group). Performance metrics, including response time, transportation speed, labor efficiency, contamination prevention, closed-loop traceability, and nursing staff satisfaction, were statistically analyzed. Full-time equivalent (FTE) was introduced to quantify the operational efficiency of the experimental group. Results The study included a total of 60 206 instances of intelligent endoscope transportation and 60 485 instances of manual transportation data. The robotic group demonstrated significantly shorter response times versus manual group for initial dispatch (51.08±14.97 seconds VS 54.44±13.61 seconds, t=35.8, P<0.001) and recovery response time (32.52±11.26 seconds VS 40.20±11.40 seconds, t=103.93, P<0.001). During the 148 days operational period, the success rate was 99.83% (60 104/60 206) and the failure rate was 0.17% (102/60 206) for robotic transports. Primary failure causes were wireless disconnection, pathfinding errors, and mechanical faults, averaging 1.05 malfunctions/month with no adverse events. The success and failure rate was 99.26% (60 043/60 485) and 0.74% (442/60 485) respectively for manual transports. Staff satisfaction was significantly higher for robotic transport in endoscopic transportation (4.65±0.55 scores VS 3.97±0.98 scores, t=96.5, P<0.001) and delivery process (4.71±0.59 scores VS 3.90±1.04 scores, t=210.3, P<0.001). and workload intensity was significantly lower (4.06±0.77 scores VS 4.48±0.63 scores, t=59.9, P=0.025). The system reduced labor requirements by 3.68 FTE, yielding annual savings of ¥657 000. Conclusion The robotic intelligent endoscope transport system improves work efficiency, reduces nursing labor costs and physical workload, enhances job experience and satisfaction, and enables full-process smart traceability, providing a validated solution for endoscopy center logistics.