Infection prevention and control challenges of using a therapeutic robot
Intended for healthcare professionals
Evidence & Practice Previous    

Infection prevention and control challenges of using a therapeutic robot

Penny Dodds Professional and practice development facilitator, Dementia UK
Katharine Martyn Principal lecturer, University of Brighton, Sussex, England
Mary Brown Part-time lecturer/practitioner, University of Brighton, Sussex, England

This work was part of a National Institute for Health Research participatory action research and practice development study, which focused on the use of a therapeutic, robotic baby seal (PARO, for personal assistive robot) in everyday practice in a single-site dementia unit in Sussex.

From the beginning of January 2017 until the end of September 2017, the cleaning and cleanliness of PARO was monitored through a service audit process that focused on the cleaning, amount of use and testing of contamination of PARO being used in everyday clinical practice with individuals and in group sessions. Its use and cleaning followed protocols developed by the study team, which incorporated hand hygiene and standard precaution policies. Its cleanliness was determined using an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) luminometer, with a benchmark of 50 relative light units (RLU). A reading of ATP below 50RLU is the level of cleanliness recommended for social areas in hospital settings. Throughout the study period, monitoring showed that all swab zones on PARO were within the benchmark of the 50RLU threshold for cleanliness.

PARO has an emerging evidence base as a useful therapeutic device. However, introducing such devices into clinical practice may encounter barriers or concerns from an infection prevention and control (IPC) perspective. This study of PARO in clinical practice aims to address the IPC concerns raised and offers cleaning and testing protocols and results.

Nursing Older People. 30, 3, 34-40. doi: 10.7748/nop.2018.e994


Peer review

This article has been subject to external double-blind review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software

Conflict of interest

None declared

Write for us

For information about writing for RCNi journals, contact

For author guidelines, go to

Received: 07 September 2017

Accepted: 13 February 2018

Want to read more?

Already subscribed? Log in


Unlock full access to RCNi Plus today

Save over 50% on your first 3 months

Your subscription package includes:
  • Unlimited online access to all 10 RCNi Journals and their archives
  • Customisable dashboard featuring 200+ topics
  • RCNi Learning featuring 180+ RCN accredited learning modules
  • RCNi Portfolio to build evidence for revalidation
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
RCN student member? Try Nursing Standard Student

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now