Saturday, December 5, 2009
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Another Meeting
During our last meeting we discussed how to go on with the project and our game plan. Rebecca had talked to her dad and we decided that we would need to make our dispenser bigger. Jessica has been working on the gozinto diagram and so we figure we are going to work on the poster this weekend. We will discuss more in recitation tomorrow.
A Few Design Changes
As of last weekend, we thought we had finished our final drawing of our device. We labeled the components, decided on final dimensions, and even color-coded the drawing. But alas, after reflecting on the drawing, we decided there were two things we definitely needed to change: the size and the doctor-controlled portion. The goal of these changes is to make our device more realistic and usable.
In our initial design, we began the process of deciding dimensions by examining the size of a pill. We researched the average size of pain medication, found the volume of a pill, and multiplied this number by 200. (In this initial design, we figured that one dose would equal 200 pills). We used this number to formulate dimensions for the area of the device that holds pill. There are several problems with this method, we have discovered. First off, we cannot just assume that one dose equals one pill. Such an assumption would make our device highly unrealistic in the real world: what if the doctor prescribes the patient to take two pills per dose? Our device could not accommodate any dosage beyond one pill (if it needs to accommodate 200 total doses, as the directions of the project indicate). Therefore, we decided that our device should be expanded to hold 400 pills. We decided on the number 400 because most pain medications rarely require the patient to take more than two pills at a time. A second change we made to the dimensions revolves around the size of the individual pill. Our original dimensions used the average size of pain medication to determine dimensions. But what if the pill the patient needs to take is larger than average? Our device would no longer be applicable. Therefore, we decided that we should research the largest size of pain medication, and use that number to form the dimensions. Now our device can accommodate any type of pain medication, which makes it much more realistic. One negative to our new dimensions (the original dimensions were 13 cm by 8 cm by 5 cm, and our new dimensions are 17 cm by 11 cm by 9 cm) is that our device is much larger and bulkier. We tried to compensate for this by adding a small handle to the top of the device, in order to make the device easier to handle for patients.
The second change we made to our device deals with refilling. Initially, we had thought there would be a separate place for the doctor to be fingerprinted, and then he or she could add in as many pills as needed. There are several problems with this idea. First of all, a pharmacist would most likely be dealing with refills—not a doctor. Secondly, how does the pharmacist or doctor communicate to the device how many pills the patient may take? Without such programming, there is basically no purpose to our security and lock-out system. To fix these problems, we first decided to add a small keyboard to the back of our device. The keyboard would allow the pharmacist to input how many doses a patient can take. That way, the device knows when it needs to lock the patient out. However, now we have decided that a separate keyboard does not need to be added. Instead, when someone needs to use the device (either the patient or the pharmacist), a screen will appear (on our touch screen area) asking with the user wants to request a pill or a refill. Depending on which action is chosen, the device will recognize one of two fingerprints. If the “request a pill” function is picked, the device will recognize only the patient’s fingerprint. Similarly, if the “request a refill” button is picked, the device will only recognize the pharmacist’s fingerprint. This could potentially be problematic, because the patient would need to see the same pharmacist every time he or she needs a refill in order for this idea to work. We may need to formulate a better plan. But either way, we now know that we will be dealing with a pharmacist now instead of a doctor, and we know we need a way to program the amount of doses the patients needs.
One other small change we made was to lower the age limit on our device. Initially, we decided that our device should be limited to those ages 14 and over, but there is really no reason to exclude those younger. The beauty of our device is that it is impossible to overdose. Therefore, we decided to lower the age limit to 8.
I just made the final design with all the new specifications. As of now, we believe this will be our final design, but more ideas keep seeming to sneak up on us, so perhaps we will make a few more changes in the next few days.
In our initial design, we began the process of deciding dimensions by examining the size of a pill. We researched the average size of pain medication, found the volume of a pill, and multiplied this number by 200. (In this initial design, we figured that one dose would equal 200 pills). We used this number to formulate dimensions for the area of the device that holds pill. There are several problems with this method, we have discovered. First off, we cannot just assume that one dose equals one pill. Such an assumption would make our device highly unrealistic in the real world: what if the doctor prescribes the patient to take two pills per dose? Our device could not accommodate any dosage beyond one pill (if it needs to accommodate 200 total doses, as the directions of the project indicate). Therefore, we decided that our device should be expanded to hold 400 pills. We decided on the number 400 because most pain medications rarely require the patient to take more than two pills at a time. A second change we made to the dimensions revolves around the size of the individual pill. Our original dimensions used the average size of pain medication to determine dimensions. But what if the pill the patient needs to take is larger than average? Our device would no longer be applicable. Therefore, we decided that we should research the largest size of pain medication, and use that number to form the dimensions. Now our device can accommodate any type of pain medication, which makes it much more realistic. One negative to our new dimensions (the original dimensions were 13 cm by 8 cm by 5 cm, and our new dimensions are 17 cm by 11 cm by 9 cm) is that our device is much larger and bulkier. We tried to compensate for this by adding a small handle to the top of the device, in order to make the device easier to handle for patients.
The second change we made to our device deals with refilling. Initially, we had thought there would be a separate place for the doctor to be fingerprinted, and then he or she could add in as many pills as needed. There are several problems with this idea. First of all, a pharmacist would most likely be dealing with refills—not a doctor. Secondly, how does the pharmacist or doctor communicate to the device how many pills the patient may take? Without such programming, there is basically no purpose to our security and lock-out system. To fix these problems, we first decided to add a small keyboard to the back of our device. The keyboard would allow the pharmacist to input how many doses a patient can take. That way, the device knows when it needs to lock the patient out. However, now we have decided that a separate keyboard does not need to be added. Instead, when someone needs to use the device (either the patient or the pharmacist), a screen will appear (on our touch screen area) asking with the user wants to request a pill or a refill. Depending on which action is chosen, the device will recognize one of two fingerprints. If the “request a pill” function is picked, the device will recognize only the patient’s fingerprint. Similarly, if the “request a refill” button is picked, the device will only recognize the pharmacist’s fingerprint. This could potentially be problematic, because the patient would need to see the same pharmacist every time he or she needs a refill in order for this idea to work. We may need to formulate a better plan. But either way, we now know that we will be dealing with a pharmacist now instead of a doctor, and we know we need a way to program the amount of doses the patients needs.
One other small change we made was to lower the age limit on our device. Initially, we decided that our device should be limited to those ages 14 and over, but there is really no reason to exclude those younger. The beauty of our device is that it is impossible to overdose. Therefore, we decided to lower the age limit to 8.
I just made the final design with all the new specifications. As of now, we believe this will be our final design, but more ideas keep seeming to sneak up on us, so perhaps we will make a few more changes in the next few days.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Final Specifications
We have laid out most of our final specifications. They are scattered about in notebooks and on sheets of paper, so I thought it would be best to organize all our ideas in one place. Why not a blog?
The first issue we discussed was the age of people using our device. Our device, which uses fingerprinting to access a dose, is definitely meant for adults. Thus, our debate mainly revolved the issue of children. Can they be trusted with such a device? At first, we played around with the issue of adult supervision. Perhaps a parent’s fingerprint could be used to unlock the device, rather than a child’s. But then we ran into the problem of school, or basically anytime the child is away from a parent. Maybe a school nurse could unlock the device, we brainstormed. But we quickly shot down that idea as well; what if, for example, the nurse was absent for the day? Eventually, we decided that the idea of supervision was impractical, especially when the child may desperately need the medication. We simply cannot take the risk that a parent, or a school nurse, is not around to unlock the device. We decided the best solution to this problem was to limit our device to people ages 14 and older. We picked the age 14 because that is the year most students enter high school. They should be mature enough to use the device responsibly.
The next issue that we discussed was the power button. At first, we debated whether or not the patient should even have control over the power button. We worried that if the device was shut off, the patient may forget to take medication at the allotted times. In addition, we had initially planned to have the device flash and buzz every time a dose should be taken (for example, every six hours). In this case, the device definitely cannot be turned off. We did not like this idea, however. Can a device even be programmed to not shut off? We eventually brainstormed a better solution. We decided that the patient needs to wear a small wristband that is programmed to buzz or light up when the patient needs to take medication. This idea was much more practical: the patient will definitely notice if a wrist band (always with them) alerts them, while our original idea relied upon the patient always carrying the device with him. As we looked further into the wrist band idea, we realized that such “medical alert” devices not only already exist, but are very popular. The device does not even need to be a wrist band; it could be a small beeper attached the belt, for example. This was a strange moment for us. We spent a very long time brainstorming this idea, and with one quick search on Google, realized that such an idea has existed for years. We were proud to come up with the idea on our own, but realized that in the future, there is nothing wrong with building off other’s ideas.
The next issue we tackled was probably the most difficult: size and capacity. We began by considering the most important issue: fitting at least 200 doses into a small device. (For our device, we are assuming that one pill equals one dose. We are aware that for some pain medications, this may not be the case.) We researched the size of an average pain med. The dimensions we found were 1.5 centimeters by 1 centimeter by .7 centimeters. Thus, one pill takes up around 1.05 cubic centimeters. We multiplied this number by 200, and found that the minimum space for pills is 210 cubic centimeters. However, we realized we must account for dead space (we just had a chemistry class about close-packing atoms and space-efficiency, which was where we got the idea). We poured a giant bottle of pills into a little container to better visualize how they fit together. There was considerable overlap and little dead space, so we decided we should expand the space designated for pills to around 250 cubic centimeters. The dimensions we settled upon for the pills are 8 (length) by 8 (width) by 4 (depth) centimeters. This brings the total volume to 256 cubic centimeters, right around our goal. After figuring out the size for pill storage, everything became much easier. We easily tackled the overall dimensions. For length, we said the device would be 8 centimeters long, plus however much space we needed for the motor, latch, and batteries. The additional space ended up being 5 centimeters, so our device is a total of 13 centimeters long. The width remains the same as the width of our oil storage space: 8 centimeters. The depth is slightly larger than the pill storage area—five centimeters, instead of four. This extra centimeter is to account for the touch screen, which may extend back into the device. We need to further research this area. Regarding the touch screen, we settled upon dimensions of seven by seven centimeters. We wanted to make the device as wide as possible, in order to accommodate older people who may have trouble pressing the correct key. A wider screen translates to larger keys and letters on the screen, which we hoped would facilitate this problem. As for the rest of our device’s components, we have decided upon tentative sizes. We plan to have the latch where a patient reaches for a pill to be 2.5 (length) by 2 (width) centimeters. We still need to decide upon an exact depth. We do know that this area will be closed off from the rest of the device: when a patient sticks a finger in there, the only thing they can access is the one available pill that has been requested, not the rest of the supply. The remaining two screens will be relatively small. The first, which tells the patient how many doses are left for a set period of time (probably for a day), we assumed would be a single digit number. Thus we set the size to be one centimeter by one centimeter. The second screen tells the patient how many total doses are left in the device. This number could be a two or three digit number, so we expanded the size to 2 (length) by one (width) centimeter. The last component of our device we discussed was the fingerprinting screen. We researched the average size of such a screen, and looked at the one on Taylor’s computer, and decided upon dimensions of two by two centimeters. Lastly, we designated the empty area around the latch at the bottom for the motor and lithium ion batteries. We do not have any specific dimensions for these areas yet.
This morning, I made a sketch containing all of these final specifications. I think we have most of the overall sizes and components worked out as of now. We need to work on the inward mechanisms, which Taylor discussed in her last blog entry.
The first issue we discussed was the age of people using our device. Our device, which uses fingerprinting to access a dose, is definitely meant for adults. Thus, our debate mainly revolved the issue of children. Can they be trusted with such a device? At first, we played around with the issue of adult supervision. Perhaps a parent’s fingerprint could be used to unlock the device, rather than a child’s. But then we ran into the problem of school, or basically anytime the child is away from a parent. Maybe a school nurse could unlock the device, we brainstormed. But we quickly shot down that idea as well; what if, for example, the nurse was absent for the day? Eventually, we decided that the idea of supervision was impractical, especially when the child may desperately need the medication. We simply cannot take the risk that a parent, or a school nurse, is not around to unlock the device. We decided the best solution to this problem was to limit our device to people ages 14 and older. We picked the age 14 because that is the year most students enter high school. They should be mature enough to use the device responsibly.
The next issue that we discussed was the power button. At first, we debated whether or not the patient should even have control over the power button. We worried that if the device was shut off, the patient may forget to take medication at the allotted times. In addition, we had initially planned to have the device flash and buzz every time a dose should be taken (for example, every six hours). In this case, the device definitely cannot be turned off. We did not like this idea, however. Can a device even be programmed to not shut off? We eventually brainstormed a better solution. We decided that the patient needs to wear a small wristband that is programmed to buzz or light up when the patient needs to take medication. This idea was much more practical: the patient will definitely notice if a wrist band (always with them) alerts them, while our original idea relied upon the patient always carrying the device with him. As we looked further into the wrist band idea, we realized that such “medical alert” devices not only already exist, but are very popular. The device does not even need to be a wrist band; it could be a small beeper attached the belt, for example. This was a strange moment for us. We spent a very long time brainstorming this idea, and with one quick search on Google, realized that such an idea has existed for years. We were proud to come up with the idea on our own, but realized that in the future, there is nothing wrong with building off other’s ideas.
The next issue we tackled was probably the most difficult: size and capacity. We began by considering the most important issue: fitting at least 200 doses into a small device. (For our device, we are assuming that one pill equals one dose. We are aware that for some pain medications, this may not be the case.) We researched the size of an average pain med. The dimensions we found were 1.5 centimeters by 1 centimeter by .7 centimeters. Thus, one pill takes up around 1.05 cubic centimeters. We multiplied this number by 200, and found that the minimum space for pills is 210 cubic centimeters. However, we realized we must account for dead space (we just had a chemistry class about close-packing atoms and space-efficiency, which was where we got the idea). We poured a giant bottle of pills into a little container to better visualize how they fit together. There was considerable overlap and little dead space, so we decided we should expand the space designated for pills to around 250 cubic centimeters. The dimensions we settled upon for the pills are 8 (length) by 8 (width) by 4 (depth) centimeters. This brings the total volume to 256 cubic centimeters, right around our goal. After figuring out the size for pill storage, everything became much easier. We easily tackled the overall dimensions. For length, we said the device would be 8 centimeters long, plus however much space we needed for the motor, latch, and batteries. The additional space ended up being 5 centimeters, so our device is a total of 13 centimeters long. The width remains the same as the width of our oil storage space: 8 centimeters. The depth is slightly larger than the pill storage area—five centimeters, instead of four. This extra centimeter is to account for the touch screen, which may extend back into the device. We need to further research this area. Regarding the touch screen, we settled upon dimensions of seven by seven centimeters. We wanted to make the device as wide as possible, in order to accommodate older people who may have trouble pressing the correct key. A wider screen translates to larger keys and letters on the screen, which we hoped would facilitate this problem. As for the rest of our device’s components, we have decided upon tentative sizes. We plan to have the latch where a patient reaches for a pill to be 2.5 (length) by 2 (width) centimeters. We still need to decide upon an exact depth. We do know that this area will be closed off from the rest of the device: when a patient sticks a finger in there, the only thing they can access is the one available pill that has been requested, not the rest of the supply. The remaining two screens will be relatively small. The first, which tells the patient how many doses are left for a set period of time (probably for a day), we assumed would be a single digit number. Thus we set the size to be one centimeter by one centimeter. The second screen tells the patient how many total doses are left in the device. This number could be a two or three digit number, so we expanded the size to 2 (length) by one (width) centimeter. The last component of our device we discussed was the fingerprinting screen. We researched the average size of such a screen, and looked at the one on Taylor’s computer, and decided upon dimensions of two by two centimeters. Lastly, we designated the empty area around the latch at the bottom for the motor and lithium ion batteries. We do not have any specific dimensions for these areas yet.
This morning, I made a sketch containing all of these final specifications. I think we have most of the overall sizes and components worked out as of now. We need to work on the inward mechanisms, which Taylor discussed in her last blog entry.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Meetings
So during our group meeting for the week we discussed more specifications for our design. Jess made a rough model of the design to show us how exactly the dispenser would work. We used this design to refine our previous model. We had originally thought of using a spinning motor to dispense the pill. Then we realized that if the pill isn't a round pill it would stand the chance of being crushed when it spins. This led to another idea of a two way system. It is difficult to explain in words, but here is my attempt. There will be a small cup holding one pill at the bottom of the dispenser. When the dose is to be dispensed a flap will slide over to close the hole. The cup will then open and dispense the pill. The flap assures that only one pill is dispensed. This plan is still indefinite but it is improving as we go.
That's really all we discussed since everyone was a little short on time. If I missed something i suppose it will get mentioned eventually somewhere and I will come back and add to this....
That's really all we discussed since everyone was a little short on time. If I missed something i suppose it will get mentioned eventually somewhere and I will come back and add to this....
Monday, November 23, 2009
3D Model
Hey!
So tonight I designed a simple 3D paper-and-tape model of our PCOA device. The purpose of this simple model is mainly so we can actually see the dimensions and make sure there is enough room in the device for the vital components of our system. As I started making the model, I realized that a cone-shaped pill container in the device was not space-efficient; instead, I created "slides" along the walls; the purpose of these is to ensure that the pills are always near the opening of the device so that way every pill can be accessed without tilting or shaking the device.
So tonight I designed a simple 3D paper-and-tape model of our PCOA device. The purpose of this simple model is mainly so we can actually see the dimensions and make sure there is enough room in the device for the vital components of our system. As I started making the model, I realized that a cone-shaped pill container in the device was not space-efficient; instead, I created "slides" along the walls; the purpose of these is to ensure that the pills are always near the opening of the device so that way every pill can be accessed without tilting or shaking the device.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)