Over the past few years we have seen many reports on the use of robotic devices in medicine. Some are vastly complicated devices that can make a big difference to complex surgery - improving outcomes and, sometimes, increasing the number of operations possible.
There have also been huge advances in prostheses - some of which have considerable "intelligence" in order to work well.
I'd like to suggest something that might make a considerable difference to day-to-day medicine yet would be at the low end of complexity and, I'd hope, cost.
That is a phlebotomy robot. More or less, you sit on a chair and put your arm in the right place. It then does the blood collection, marks the tube(s), and passes them up the chain to the lab.
If done well, I suspect it would reduce the occurrence of severe bruising, missed veins, etc. And avoid the dependence on trained phlebotomists being available. Thus potentially opening up blood collection to 24-hour working. Allowing collection to be done at a biologically appropriate time (so long as the patients can get there). Avoiding the impact of staff sickness on blood testing. Improving the quality of samples taken.
Many, possibly all, existing phlebotomists will still be needed. For doing the rounds of in-patients. For dealing with non-standard situations (such as the need to take blood from elsewhere than the arm). For meeting, greeting, explaining, and generally helping things to run well.
Those of us who find getting an early blood test difficult, or impossible, might find it makes a big difference so long as its use increases rate of blood draws.
And, eventually, we might even see such robotic devices being installed in many more locations than currently do phlebotomy.
Oooh, sounds an excellent idea! But have a feeling it's not going to happen any time soon 🤔 so I'll not get too excited!
I can't help but think it is so much simpler than the mega-surgical robots, it might be a really good target for developers and manufacturers to prove much technology in the real world.
And, with far more blood tests than operations, the cost-benefits of producing considerable numbers would help with the per-machine prices.
A much simpler idea would be to create a monitor, much like a Glucose Monitor, that measures a FT3 level. That, I imagine, would save quite a bit of time and money while trying to raise levels.
Such a device might be desirable. But you'd need one for each patient covered. Thus making it expensive.
One phlebotomy robot could deal with thousands of people.
Cost per person would likely be quite low if used intensively.
You can imagine a muti-bay machine where one central unit can handle several people at once.
I rather thought that we could buy a machine, much like some buy a blood glucose machine, with strips that read your current FT3 level.
Well, there is a TSH test that has a strip.
But it has a severe limitation which makes it almost entirely useless. It can only check whether you are under or over a specific level. In real strips for sale, that is set at 5.
I suspect quite a lot of members would find that worse than useless by actually misleading. And clearly unusable for checks in pregnancy where the usual mantra is that TSH should be under 2.5 (or 2, or somewhere near - varying by guideline).
You could dream up using ten strips - each one set up for a different level of TSH, thus narrowing down the range - something like less than 1, 1.01 to 2, 2.01 to 3, etc. But the cost would also multiply!
I think a Free T3 test which we could do at home and would give a meaningful and consistent numeric result is quite a long way off.
Yes, the TSH test strip does sound pretty useless. Unfortunately, I also think a FT3 test for home use is a long way off. It has been mentioned once before but did not get off the ground.
I like that idea. Like the continuous blood sugar monitors you attach to your arm that give readings to an app on your phone.
I was thinking much simpler than that, just like a simple glucose monitor, where a finger prick is needed. Not everyone has a smart phone, and a glucose monitor is cheaper.