Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective Organ transportation requires innovation. We recently showed that unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) could transport human organs. There are no data addressing UAS acceptance among healthcare providers. Conceptually, UAS implementation may improve delivery of care through improved efficiency. We sought to learn surgical perspectives on current and innovated organ transport systems.
Methods An Institutional Review Board exempt, pretested, 5-point Likert scale web-based survey was undertaken. Transplant surgeons taking kidney transplant offers in the USA (n=174) were sampled.
Results Of 174 surveys, 122 were delivered successfully, and 55 responses collected. Mean age was 48.1 (range 34–64), and 80% were male. Forty-two (76.4%) surgeons felt cold ischaemia time reduction to 8 hours would increase organ acceptance rates. More than 23% of respondents were fearful and 34.5% nervous regarding drones. Nearly all (92.7%) respondents believed drones could help people; 90.9% felt the mode of transportation was irrelevant to their decision to accept an organ but that speed and quality were most important. Only 16.4% of surgeons believed the current system is adequate for our transportation needs.
Conclusions Surgeons feel the present system of organ transportation needs reform, and an innovated system using UAS might improve care. An innovated organ transportation system involving UAS may lead to fear and anxiety among transplant surgeons, suggesting that research and education are required ahead of adoption.
- clinical decision-making
- delivery of health care
- ethics
- health care facilities, manpower and services
- health care quality, access and evaluation
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Twitter @TalaieTara
Contributors SN assisted in planning the study. EV assisted in designing the survey and validation of the survey. TT conducted the survey and submitted the study. JS assisted in writing the manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests JS has a financial interest in MissionGO, a startp-up company which developed as a result of the technologies referenced in this publication.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplemental information.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.