Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Hygiene and the Use of Robotic Animals in Hospitals: A Review of the Literature

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study is to synthesize the existing literature on hospital hygiene and robotic animals to provide researchers and professionals that use robotic animals in this environment with tools and guidelines. The conducted literature review leads to the conclusion that cleaning procedures reported in the included studies and hygienic guidelines cannot be applied to currently available robotic animals due to excessive use of water, disinfectants and high temperatures. This study consequently raises questions about the application of these robotic animals in more vulnerable populations and adds to the understanding of the required conditions for robotic animals if being developed to be used in healthcare institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Salter T, Werry I, Michaud F (2008) Going into the wild in child-robot interaction studies: issues in social robotic development. Intell Serv Robot 1(2):93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Broekens J, Heerink M, Rosendal H (2009) Assistive social robots in elderly care: a review. Gerontechnology 8(2):94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Heerink M (2008) Enjoyment intention to use and actual use of a conversational robot by elderly people. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human robot interaction ACM

  4. Heerink M et al (2010) Assessing acceptance of assistive social agent technology by older adults: the Almere model. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stanton CM (2008) Robotic animals might aid in the social development of children with autism. IEEE

  6. Kahn Jr PH (2004) Robotic pets in the lives of preschool children. In: CHI’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, ACM

  7. Tamura T et al (2004) Is an entertainment robot useful in the care of elderly people with severe dementia? J Gerontol Ser 59(1):M83–M85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Stiehl WD (2005) Design of a therapeutic robotic companion for relational, affective touch. In: Robot and human interactive communication, 2005. ROMAN 2005. IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication

  9. Larriba F (2015) Externalising moods and psychological states to smooth pet-robot/child interaction through bluetooth communication. In: Husai SA, Husai K, Paciello F (eds) Bioinformatics and biomedical engineering. Springer, Granada, pp 683–693

    Google Scholar 

  10. Santos KBD (2012) The Huggable: a socially assistive robot for pediatric care. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. New Pals (2015) http://www.newfriends.nu/eng/projects-workshops-2/new-pals/. Accessed 14 Nov 2015

  12. InnvoLabs. What is Pleo rb? http://www.pleoworld.com/pleo_rb/eng/lifeform.php. Accessed 14 Nov 2015

  13. Ibfelt T et al (2015) Effect of cleaning and disinfection of toys on infectious diseases and micro-organisms in daycare nurseries. J Hosp Infect 89(2):109–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Avila-Aguero MaL (2004) Toys in a pediatric hospital: are they a bacterial source? Am J Infect Control 32(5):287–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kamhuka LN, Rees G (2013) Successful control of a vancomycin resistant Enterococci (VRE) outbreak on a pediatric ward—do not forget the toys cited in scopus. 4

  16. Merriman E, Corwin P, Ikram R (2002) Toys are a potential source of cross-infection in general practitioners’ waiting rooms. Br J Gen Pract 52(475):138–140

    Google Scholar 

  17. Naesens R et al (2009) Washing toys in a neonatal intensive care unit decreases bacterial load of potential pathogens. J Hosp Infect 71(2):197–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Subramanian B et al (2014) Empathy dolls: are they a source of cross-contamination between patients? J Hosp Infect 87(1):50–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fleming K, Randle J (2006) Toys-friend or foe? A study of infection risk in a paediatric intensive care unit. Paediatri Nurs 18(4):14–18

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rogers M et al (2000) Rotavirus outbreak on a pediatric oncology floor: possible association with toys. Am J Infect Control 28(5):378–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hanrahan KS, Lofgren M (2004) Evidence based practice: examining the risks of toys in the microenvironment of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit. Adv Neonatal Care 4(4):184–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pelgrim M Een uitbraak van gastro-enteritis in een kinderdagverblijf: de belangrijkste evidence-based hygiëneadviezen op een rij. Infectieziekten Bull 229

  23. Hygiënerichtlijnen voor Medische Kinderdagverblijven en Boddaertcentra: Semi-residentieel (2009) Landelijk Centrum Hygiëne en Veiligheid. Amsterdam

  24. Control IPA (2009) Toys and toy cleaning. SHR Regional Infection Prevention and Control Executive Committee

  25. Guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections among hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients, in MMWR. Recommendations and reports: morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports/Centers for Disease Control (2000) Centers for Disease Control Prevention. The Infectious Disease Society American Society of Blood and Marrow

  26. Veilig werken in de kindergeneeskunde (2004) Werkgroep Infectie Preventie Leiden

  27. Flevoziekenhuis (2012) Infectiepreventie Richtlijn Reiniging en desinfectie. Flevoziekenhuis, Almere

  28. Sociale robot PARO-gebruikershandleiding. Focal Meditech B.V., Tilburg

  29. Hasbro (2003) FurReal friends instruction manual

  30. Pleo rb handleiding (2010) Innvo Labs Limited, Hong Kong

  31. User’s Manual–JustoCat (2014) Robyn Robotics, AB. Västerås, Sweden

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is part of the New Palls (‘Nieuwe Maatjes’) project, which is financed by the SIA-RAAK program of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Furthermore we want to express our gratitude to the staff at the Flevo Hospital in Almere for their cooperation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tecla S. Scholten.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scholten, T.S., Vissenberg, C. & Heerink, M. Hygiene and the Use of Robotic Animals in Hospitals: A Review of the Literature. Int J of Soc Robotics 8, 499–511 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0367-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-016-0367-6

Keywords

Navigation