A State Based Dispatch Controller for Hospital Delivery Robots with Shared Human and Infrastructure Resources
Organizations: Faculty of Electrical Engineering Warsaw University of Technology Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warszawa · Faculty of Control, Robotics and Electrical Engineering Poznań University of Technology Piotrowo 3a, 61-138 Poznan
Abstract
Robot delivery studies can overstate transport capacity when travel to pickups and human support fall outside the modeled schedule. We formulate a location aware dispatch model that couples robot admission to transporter support and shared elevators, charging, and cleaning. The model replays 33,079 observed hospital requests; missing contents, deadlines, staffing, and completion times remain explicit scenario assumptions. Two full grids compare human dispatch, a resource aware controller, and a proximity and workload benchmark in 30 paired replications per scenario. An exploratory extension tests a simpler deadline admission rule under the same operating model. Pickup travel increases demand on a pooled elevator bank. In one high staffing case, raising assumed elevator capacity from two to four reduces human only lateness from 55.11% to 3.18%, exceeding the dispatch differences. Direct policy comparisons and robot coverage distinguish admission selectivity from system service. The analysis explains why a robot can pass a deadline admission test yet delay service through staff handoffs and shared facilities. Its contribution is a reproducible evaluation of coupled dispatch workflows, with a clear separation between admission, completion, and return to availability. The results are conditional comparisons, not estimates of hospital benefit or released clinical capacity.
Figures & tables
| Class | Share (%) | Priority | Deadline (min) | Loading (min) | Receiving (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medication | 14.958 | 2 | 35 | 1.4 | 1.0 |
| Specimen | 84.061 | 1 | 25 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Supply | 0.929 | 4 | 120 | 2.0 | 1.5 |
| Instrument | 0.053 | 2 | 45 | 2.5 | 1.5 |
| Parameter | Reference value | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Hospital beds | 200 | Normalization denominator |
| Warmup period | 7 days | Excluded from outcome measurement |
| Measurement period | 30 days | Included in every principal run |
| Night staffing | 2 transporters | 22:00 to 06:00 |
| Day staffing | 8 transporters | 06:00 to 14:00 |
| Evening staffing | 7 transporters | 14:00 to 22:00 |
| Experiment | Simulations | Principal purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Staffing calibration | 5,040 | Select shift counts meeting service and utilization targets |
| Robot policy comparison | 8,100 | Compare human, overflow, and priority policies |
| Global sensitivity | 4,096 | Vary nine uncertain inputs simultaneously |
| Elevator contention | 2,400 | Test shared elevator capacity and service time |
| Battery and charging | 2,700 | Test energy, charger count, and charger power |
| Exact route batching | 1,400 | Test collection windows and batch capacity |
| Measure | Minimum | Median | Mean | 95th percentile | Maximum |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distance, m | 14.4 | 298.0 | 317.0 | 675.9 | 877.7 |
| Elevator rides | 0 | 1 | 1.21 | 2 | 3 |
| Floors crossed | 0 | 2 | 2.86 | 8 | 13 |
| Human travel, min | 0.45 | 7.49 | 7.78 | 13.52 | 18.07 |
| Robot travel, min | 0.60 | 8.83 | 9.25 | 16.34 | 22.12 |
| Input | Low | High |
| Demand multiplier | 0.75 | 1.25 |
| Robot reliability | 0.950 | 0.995 |
| Coordination time, min | 0.5 | 4.0 |
| Congestion sigma | 0.10 | 0.35 |
| Elevator cycle, min | 1.2 | 6.0 |
| Human speed, m/min | 55 | 90 |
| Policy | Fleet | Late or incomplete (%) | Urgent late (%) | Idle min | Human support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Human only | 0 | 6.60 | 3.79 | 2068.3 | 0.0 |
| ARAD | 1 | 6.83 | 4.21 | 2059.7 | 29.4 |
| ARAD | 2 | 6.98 | 4.62 | 2056.8 | 56.4 |
| ARAD | 4 | 7.42 | 5.44 | 2052.7 | 100.1 |
| Deadline feasible | 1 | 6.85 | 4.20 | 2062.0 | 29.5 |
| Deadline feasible | 2 | 6.92 | 4.40 | 2058.4 | 54.3 |
| Class | Priority | Deadline | Load | Receive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specimen | 1 | 25, 45, 60 | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Medication | 2 | 35 | 1.4 | 1.0 |
| Supply | 4 | 120 | 2.0 | 1.5 |
| Instrument | 2 | 45 | 2.5 | 1.5 |
| Roster | Task mix | Specimen deadline (min) | Human only (%) | ARAD difference | Proximity difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Source | 25 | 55.11 | +0.04 | +0.24 |
| High | Source | 45 | 43.82 | +0.19 | +0.21 |
| High | Source | 60 | 38.26 | +0.31 | +0.23 |
| High | Balanced | 25 | 46.27 | -0.16 | +0.01 |
| High | Balanced | 45 | 41.04 | +0.01 | -0.06 |
| High | Balanced | 60 | 38.44 | -0.10 | -0.09 |
| Roster | Task mix | Specimen deadline (min) | Human only (%) | ARAD difference | Proximity difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High | Source | 25 | 3.18 | +0.11 | +0.03 |
| High | Source | 45 | 0.22 | +0.03 | -0.00 |
| High | Source | 60 | 0.16 | +0.01 | +0.00 |
| High | Balanced | 25 | 1.61 | +0.05 | +0.00 |
| High | Balanced | 45 | 0.25 | +0.01 | +0.00 |
| High | Balanced | 60 | 0.22 | +0.00 | -0.00 |
| Bank | Roster | Policy | Coverage (%) | Overall difference | Urgent difference | Idle difference | Support |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | High | ARAD | 0.15 | +0.04 [-0.07, +0.15] | +0.03 [-0.09, +0.14] | -8.37 [-32.44, +15.70] | 1.7 |
| 2 | High | Proximity | 0.42 | +0.24 [+0.10, +0.38] | +0.22 [+0.09, +0.36] | -60.35 [-90.62, -30.09] | 4.6 |
| 2 | High | Deadline | 0.19 | +0.06 [-0.09, +0.22] | +0.02 [-0.14, +0.19] | -18.95 [-44.71, +6.80] | 2.1 |
| 2 | Moderate | ARAD | 0.82 | +0.22 [+0.15, +0.29] | +0.23 [+0.16, +0.30] | -37.24 [-45.80, -28.67] | 8.9 |
| 2 | Moderate | Proximity | 1.19 | +0.43 [+0.35, +0.51] | +0.43 [+0.34, +0.52] | -74.20 [-83.91, -64.48] | 12.8 |
| 2 | Moderate | Deadline | 0.84 | +0.22 [+0.16, +0.29] | +0.20 [+0.13, +0.27] | -32.09 [-39.83, -24.35] | 8.8 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Policy, robots | Late (%) | Late change (pp) | Gross idle change (min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adaptive, 1 | 10.33 | -3.40 [-3.51, -3.30] | 51.1 [50.2, 52.1] |
| Adaptive, 2 | 8.50 | -5.24 [-5.38, -5.10] | 79.0 [77.7, 80.4] |
| Adaptive, 4 | 6.48 | -7.26 [-7.44, -7.08] | 105.9 [104.1, 107.7] |
| Overflow, 1 | 10.48 | -3.26 [-3.37, -3.14] | 95.4 [94.5, 96.4] |
| Overflow, 2 | 8.84 | -4.89 [-5.04, -4.74] | 155.3 [153.9, 156.8] |
| Overflow, 4 | 6.71 | -7.03 [-7.21, -6.86] | 232.9 [230.8, 235.0] |