How IoT and Robotics are Transforming Healthcare: Opportunities, Risks, and Real-World Impact

While hundreds of IoT initiatives target healthcare, only a fraction deliver measurable benefits. The risk is especially palpable when the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) considers disruptive technology.

So far, the NHS has invested £11 billion (€12.31 billion) in a “fit‑for‑purpose” IT programme that ultimately proved ill‑suited. Any future procurement of disruptive solutions will need to be backed by a clear, data‑driven business case.

IoT deployments in healthcare should be grounded in realistic expectations. “Acqueon” claims its IoT platform could save the NHS £500 million (€559.72 million) annually—if those savings materialise, the vendor should receive a commission tied to verified cost reductions.

One of the most urgent challenges is medication non‑compliance. When patients miss doses, 200 000 premature deaths occur in Europe each year, a figure that will climb as the population ages. Polypharmacy—multiple prescriptions taken at varying intervals—exacerbates this risk.

Smart pill boxes detect when a compartment has not been opened and send automated reminders to patients. If a reminder is ignored and the box remains closed, the device alerts the clinician, who can intervene directly.

Robotic assistance in surgery dates back to 1984 with the Arthrobot, the first robot to enter an operating theatre. Since then, robots have performed procedures ranging from ophthalmic and orthopaedic surgeries to complex neurosurgical interventions.

In 1992, Imperial College London introduced the PROBOT, which performed the first robotic prostatectomy at Guy’s & St Thomas’s Hospital. Over the past decades, robots have gained “human‑like” capabilities, including leaving surgical instruments inside patients—a phenomenon documented in the study “Adverse Events in Robotic Surgery: A Retrospective Study of 14 Years of FDA Data.”

The authors from the University of Illinois, Michigan Institute of Technology and Rush Medical Center analysed MAUDE data and found that, out of 1.74 million robotic procedures (primarily urological or gynaecological), there were 8 061 device malfunctions, 1 391 patient injuries and 144 patient deaths. Electrical arcing, sparking or charring of instruments and the accidental deposition of broken fragments inside patients were linked to 119 injuries and one death.

“Robotic surgery is not risk‑free,” says Greg McEwen, partner at BLM, an insurance‑law specialist. “Incidents involving broken or abandoned instruments are not unique to robotics. The data can’t determine whether a complication is solely attributable to a robot, to patient factors, or to the surgery itself.”

Consequently, the debate over whether robotic procedures deliver net benefit continues. While some studies suggest outcomes are comparable to conventional surgery, many clinicians question whether “as good as” is sufficient when patient safety is at stake.

Sales of surgical robots have plateaued, and the industry is investing heavily in emerging markets such as China and São Paulo, Brazil. Robotic systems still require lengthy set‑up times, and changing instruments during an operation can extend anaesthetic exposure.

Furthermore, robots lack the haptic feedback that seasoned surgeons rely on to gauge traction and force, increasing the risk of inadvertent tissue damage. Several U.S. court cases have already linked robotic surgery to serious complications and fatalities.

Despite these challenges, investment in robotics is surging. Remote‑surgery demonstrations over 5G networks, showcased at the 2023 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, signal progress—but true clinical deployment remains a work in progress.

The author of this article is Nick Booth, freelance IT and communications writer.