Erasmus MC and TU Delft have officially opened the Erasmus MC Robotics Centre, a joint initiative aimed at helping address the growing pressure on the Dutch healthcare system. The centre will focus on developing and implementing robotics that demonstrably reduce the workload of healthcare professionals and improve patient care.
The centre was launched against the backdrop of demographic change and growing labour shortages, which Erasmus MC sees as a key reason for establishing the initiative. At the opening, Dirk Schraven, member of the Erasmus MC Executive Board, presented figures illustrating the scale of the challenge. Even with current government measures, including efforts to limit administrative work and make more efficient use of staff and technology, the shortage of healthcare workers is projected to reach around 200,000 full-time equivalents. Without additional measures, the gap could rise to 350,000 FTEs.
According to Schraven, current policies are necessary but will not be sufficient. Erasmus MC therefore wants to position itself not only as a healthcare provider, but also as a partner in developing a technology campus together with private companies and knowledge institutions. He pointed to a structural weakness in the Dutch and European innovation ecosystem: strong inventions are regularly developed, but scaling them into widespread practical use remains difficult. The Robotics Centre is intended to help bridge that gap.
Two research tracks form the foundation
The centre builds on two earlier programmes. The first is Nurture, a research project lasting more than two years in which Erasmus MC and TU Delft examined the future of nursing and identified tasks that could potentially be supported or automated. The second is the TectorCare core programme, which looks at which technologies, particularly generative AI and robotics, can realistically be deployed in healthcare practice.
David Abbink, professor of robotics at TU Delft and affiliated with the FRAIM foundation, explained the thinking behind the initiative. In practice, he said, improving labour productivity while simultaneously improving the quality of work is difficult and requires long-term systemic change. That means structural, transdisciplinary cooperation between science, healthcare practice and policymakers rather than a series of isolated pilot projects.
Abbink also highlighted the difficulty of scaling healthcare innovation. An estimated 10 to 30 percent of healthcare innovations ultimately manage to scale, often because the organisational structures needed for broader implementation are missing.
Nurture therefore worked with multidisciplinary teams from the outset, bringing together technical designers, organisational scientists and nurses. This approach resulted in twenty substantiated opportunities for improving nursing workflows.
From twenty opportunities to three priorities
Monique van Dijk, professor and researcher involved in Nurture, presented the main themes that emerged from those twenty opportunities. These included recognition of the nursing profession, fragmentation of tasks and the resulting emotional burden, and the degree of control nurses have over their own work processes.
Three areas were identified as particularly suitable for action in the shorter term: searching for and retrieving materials, the unstructured accumulation of alarms on hospital wards, and the amount of time spent on administration and reviewing patient records.
Van Dijk stressed that every intervention must first be thoroughly evaluated for reliability, safety and measurable time savings. Involving end users is also essential. As an example, she referred to a previously introduced weighing system integrated into hospital beds that failed to become established because users lacked confidence in the technology and had received insufficient instruction.
Conny Nieuwenhuis, programme manager at Tech2Care, translated these findings into three programme areas: improving materials logistics, including through robotics; reducing alarm overload on hospital wards; and reducing the administrative burden through digitalisation and AI.
One example is the automatic transfer of consultation notes into electronic patient records. Suppliers have already been selected for this project and are due to begin departmental testing in the first quarter of next year. Continuous feedback from nurses will be a prerequisite for any further scaling.
Acceptance among staff and patients
To assess attitudes towards robotics, Nieuwenhuis conducted an informal survey among attendees at the opening, which included both Erasmus MC employees and external partners.
The responses were mixed. Some participants expressed concerns that robotics could reduce human contact, while others primarily regarded robots as tools that could support healthcare workers. One employee summarised a widely shared view: robots can take over certain tasks, but they cannot replace the people themselves. Instead, they can create more time for the core elements of healthcare.
A patient was also invited to give her perspective. Her response reflected the broader sentiment in the room. Practical tasks can be transferred to robots if this creates more time for personal attention, but emotionally sensitive moments, such as reassuring a patient, should remain outside the scope of automation.
Four pillars and a problem-driven approach
Steven Petit, lead of the Robotics Centre, placed the new organisation in the context of robotics already being used at Erasmus MC. Existing applications include a pharmacy robot, robotic surgery in operating theatres, automated laboratory processes and an ongoing pilot involving a mobile dressing trolley robot.
Despite this experience, Petit said there is still a significant gap between promising applications on paper and technologies that prove useful in day-to-day clinical practice, particularly in an environment facing persistent staffing shortages.
The Robotics Centre has a core team of four employees, with a vacancy still open for a social scientist. Its work is based on four pillars: identifying opportunities through direct contact with healthcare staff, learning through small-scale prototypes and pilots, providing policy advice and technical support, and sharing knowledge through publications and symposia.
Petit summarised the centre’s approach as: “The problem comes first, then the technology.”
Hospital departments and external partners are encouraged to submit operational challenges. The centre then assesses whether robotics is the most appropriate solution or whether a simpler alternative would be more effective.
As an example of its design process, the centre demonstrated a prototype robot developed in-house that can hand over an item on request. The application itself is relatively simple, but it demonstrates how a robotic arm combined with mobility can be used to deliver specific materials, a principle that could have direct relevance in clinical settings.
Iterative design starting on the work floor
Innovator Hanneke van der Velden explained the centre’s design methodology, which originates from TU Delft’s design sciences. The process consists of two stages. First, the problem is clearly defined together with all relevant stakeholders. Only after that does the team look for an appropriate solution, which does not necessarily have to involve robotics.
The centre’s first needs assessment focused on tasks that are physically demanding, repetitive, time-consuming or otherwise undesirable. Discussions with fourteen departments resulted in 28 identified opportunities relating to transport and logistics.
Together with the departments, three areas were selected for further development. The first is transporting biopsies and samples between operating theatres, pathology departments and laboratories. The second involves transporting lead-lined containers carrying nuclear materials, a physically demanding task that, according to the centre, has contributed to some employees leaving their roles earlier than planned. The third involves bringing materials directly to nurses on hospital wards, reducing interruptions to patient care.
Freddy dressing trolley robot provides proof of concept
The most advanced project so far involves a mobile dressing trolley robot known operationally as Freddy, developed in cooperation with supplier Dalco.
In an ongoing pilot on the oncology ward, Freddy follows nurses and provides dressing materials and other supplies when required. The main benefit identified so far is not necessarily time savings, but a reduction in interruptions. Nurses can remain with their patients rather than having to leave to collect materials.
The effects on workload and job satisfaction are currently being monitored scientifically. A second department is also expected to begin using Freddy shortly.
Van der Velden stressed that innovations of this kind require time to become embedded in daily practice. She pointed to Robbie, Erasmus MC’s pharmacy robot. After a difficult initial introduction several years ago, the robot was taken out of service because it caused operational disruption. It has since been reintroduced and is now used structurally.
According to Van der Velden, the case illustrates a broader lesson: successful adoption of robotics requires iterative validation and close coordination with the people who ultimately have to work with the technology.
The goal of healthcare robotics is therefore not to replace healthcare professionals, but to reduce physical strain, time-consuming secondary tasks and operational interruptions. The intention is to free up more capacity for direct patient care.
Petit summarised the centre’s position: humans remain in control, while robotics provides support.
