Design of a service for hospital internal transport of urgent pharmaceuticals via drones

Abstract

The movement of medical supplies within a hospital heavily depends on people physically carrying these materials. Traditional methods of transporting medical supplies within hospitals often encounter logistical challenges, particularly in densely populated areas like Yalova Merkez in Yalova Province, Turkey. To address these challenges, this study introduces a drone-based delivery system for urgent pharmaceuticals, specifically designed to enhance logistics efficiency and safety within hospital settings. Through a collaborative approach, we developed and validated this service design at CityHospital, a Virtual/Simulated Hospital utilized for our research simulation. Primary user needs were identified through interviews and visual aids, informing the design of the drone service. Feedback from users underscores its potential to significantly improve healthcare logistics. While this system offers notable advantages in efficiency, precautions against risks such as tampering with delivery containers are essential. Proposed strategies include the use of tamper-evident seals and mechatronic locks. Furthermore, this analysis identifies key information for implementing a digital logistics management system, paving the way for future enhancements.

Keywords

• Hospital logistics
• Drone delivery
• Pharmaceutical transportation
• Healthcare supply chain
• Logistics efficiency

References

1. Volland, J., Fügener, A., Schoenfelder, J., & Brunner, J. O. (2017). Material logistics in hospitals: A literature review. Omega, 69, 82-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.08.004
2. Moons, K., Waeyenbergh, G., & Pintelon, L. (2019). Measuring the logistics performance of internal hospital supply chains–a literature study. Omega, 82, 205-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.01.007
3. Vancroonenburg, W., Esprit, E., Smet, P., & Vanden Berghe, G. (2016). Optimizing internal logistic flows in hospitals by dynamic pick-up and delivery models. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on the Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Udine, Italy, 371-383.
4. Medical Device Coordination Group. (2019). Guidance on qualification and classification of software in regulation (EU) 2017/745–MDR and regulation (EU) 2017/746–IVDR. European Commission.
5. Zhou, F., Li, J., Lu, M., Ma, L., Pan, Y., Liu, X., ... & Cai, L. (2020). Tracing asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers among 3674 hospital staff: a cross-sectional survey. EClinicalMedicine, 26, 1-8.
6. Hiebert, B., Nouvet, E., Jeyabalan, V., & Donelle, L. (2020). The application of drones in healthcare and health-related services in north america: A scoping review. Drones, 4(3), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones4030030
7. Ayamga, M., Akaba, S., & Nyaaba, A. A. (2021). Multifaceted applicability of drones: A review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167, 120677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120677
8. Euchi, J. (2021). Do drones have a realistic place in a pandemic fight for delivering medical supplies in healthcare systems problems?. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 34(2), 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.06.006

9. Merkert, R., & Bushell, J. (2020). Managing the drone revolution: A systematic literature review into the current use of airborne drones and future strategic directions for their effective control. Journal of Air Transport Management, 89, 101929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2020.101929
10. Turan, V., Avşar, E., Asadi, D., & Aydın, E. A. (2021). Image processing based autonomous landing zone detection for a multi-rotor drone in emergency situations. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 5(4), 193-200. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.744954
11. Zeybek, M. (2021). Classification of UAV point clouds by random forest machine learning algorithm. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 5(2), 48-57. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.669566
12. Akay, S. S., Ozcan, O., Şanlı, F. B., Bayram, B., & Görüm, T. (2021). Assessing the spatial accuracy of UAV-derived products based on variation of flight altitudes. Turkish Journal of Engineering, 5(1), 35-40. https://doi.org/10.31127/tuje.653631
13. Amukele, T., Ness, P. M., Tobian, A. A., Boyd, J., & Street, J. (2017). Drone transportation of blood products. Transfusion, 57(3), 582-588. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.13900
14. Nyaaba, A. A., & Ayamga, M. (2021). Intricacies of medical drones in healthcare delivery: Implications for Africa. Technology in Society, 66, 101624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101624
15. Haidari, L. A., Brown, S. T., Ferguson, M., Bancroft, E., Spiker, M., Wilcox, A., ... & Lee, B. Y. (2016). The economic and operational value of using drones to transport vaccines. Vaccine, 34(34), 4062-4067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.06.022
16. Wang, N. (2021). “As it is Africa, it is ok”? Ethical considerations of development use of drones for delivery in Malawi. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, 2(1), 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/TTS.2021.3058669
17. Bauranov, A., & Rakas, J. (2021). Designing airspace for urban air mobility: A review of concepts and approaches. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 125, 100726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100726
18. International Civil Aviation Organization (1944). Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention); International Civil Aviation Organization: Chicago, IL, USA.
19. ISO/DIS 23629-5 (2022). Unmanned Aircraft Systems—UAS Traffic Management (UTM)—Part 5: UTM Functional Structure. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland.
20. ISO/DIS 23629-12 (2021). UAS Traffic Management (UTM)—Part 12: Requirements for UTM Service Providers. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland
21. Jarus FAQ (2021). http://jarus-rpas.org/
22. Joint Authorities for Rulemaking of Unmanned Systems (2019). JARUS Recommendation for Remote Pilot Competency (RPC) for UAS Operations in Category A (Open) and Category B (Specific). JARUS.
23. European Union. (2019). Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/945 of 12 March 2019 on Unmanned Aircraft Systems and on Third-Country Operators of Unmanned Aircraft Systems; Official Journal C/2019/1821; European Union: Brussels, Belgium
24. European Union (2019). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947 of 24 May 2019 on the Rules and Procedures for the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft; Official Journal C/2019/3824; European Union: Brussels, Belgium.
25. European Union. (2012). Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/664 of 22 April 2021 on a regulatory framework for the U-space; Official Journal C/2021/2671; European Union: Brussels, Belgium
26. European Union Aviation Safety Agency (2021). Study on the Societal Acceptance of Urban Air Mobility in Europe; European Union: Brussels, Belgium.
27. European Cockpit Association. Unmanned Aircraft Systems and the Concepts of Automation and Autonomy. (2020). ECA Briefing Paper 2020; ECA: Brussels, Belgium
28. European Union Aviation Safety Agency. (2021). Provisions Applicable to both ‘Open’ and ’Specific’ Category. https://www.easa.europa.eu/the-agency/faqs/drones-uas
29. European Union. Commission (2021). Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/666 of 22 April 2021 Amending Regulation (EU) No 923/2012 as Regards Requirements for Manned Aviation Operating in U-Space Airspace; Official Journal C/2021/2673; European Union: Brussels, Belgium
30. ISO 21384-3 (2019). Unmanned Aircraft Systems—Part 3: Operational Procedures. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland
31. Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.
32. Stickdorn, M., Hormess, M. E., Lawrence, A., & Schneider, J. (2018). This is service design doing. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
33. Jones, P. (2013). Design for care: Innovating healthcare experience. Rosenfeld Media.
34. Clack, L. A., & Ellison, R. L. (2019). Innovation in service design thinking. Service design and service thinking in healthcare and hospital management: Theory, concepts, practice, 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00749-2_6
35. Blomkvist, J., Holmlid, S., & Segelström, F. (2010). Service design research: yesterday, today and tomorrow. This Is Service Design Thinking, 308-315.
36. Euchi, J. (2021). Do drones have a realistic place in a pandemic fight for delivering medical supplies in healthcare systems problems?. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 34(2), 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.06.006
37. Law, A. M., Kelton, W. D., & Kelton, W. D. (2007). Simulation modeling and analysis (Vol. 3). New York: Mcgraw-hill.
38. Hillier, F. S., & Lieberman, G. J. (2015). Introduction to operations research. McGraw-Hill.
39. Taha, H. A. (2017). Operations research: an introduction. Pearson Education India.
40. Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., & Campolongo, F. (2000). Sensitivity analysis as an ingredient of modeling. Statistical science, 377-395.
41. Scott, J., & Scott, C. (2017). Drone delivery models for healthcare. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3297-3304.
42. Yedavalli, P., & Mooberry, J. (2019). An assessment of public perception of urban air mobility (UAM). Airbus UTM: Defining Future Skies, 2046738072-1580045281.
43. Garrow, L. A., German, B. J., & Leonard, C. E. (2021). Urban air mobility: A comprehensive review and comparative analysis with autonomous and electric ground transportation for informing future research. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 132, 103377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103377
44. Joint Authorities for Rulemaking of Unmanned Systems (2019). JARUS Guidelines on Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA). JARUS. http://jarus-rpas.org/sites/jarus-rpas.org/files/jar_doc_06_jarus_sora_v2.0.pdf