PRE2016 1 Groep1
Group members
Marissa Damink 0858700 (M)
Jochem Meijer 0899769 (JO)
Nicky Alexander 0886116 (N)
Jesse van Kempen 0907453 (JE)
Jasmijn Kleij 0906848 (JA)
Hypothesis
Hypotheses:
Verzorgers hebben behoefte aan ondersteuning door de tillift
- Verzorgers hebben behoefte aan ondersteuning met camera’s bij het navigeren van de tillift.
- Verzorgers hebben behoefte aan een tillift die zelf kan navigeren en obstakels kan ontwijken.
- De verzorger wil graag gewaarschuwd worden door de tillift als de patient angstig is
- Patienten stellen het op prijs als ze gerustgesteld worden door de tillift als ze angstig zijn.
- Verzorgers hebben behoeft aan een tillift die informatie kan geven over het gewicht en de BMI van de patient
Patiënten en verzorgers hechten waarde aan interactie tijdens het proces van liften
- Patiënten hebben tijdens het werken met een tillift veel behoefte aan een bepaalde mate van interactie met de verzorger. (dus meer behoefte aan aanraking/ oogcontact/ spraak, of helemaal geen behoefte?) (enquete)
- Tijdens de interactie tussen patiënt en verzorger is oogcontact belangrijker dan spraak voor een aangename interactie. (enquete)
- Tijdens de interactie tussen patiënt en verzorger is oogcontact belangrijker dan fysiek contact voor een aangename interactie. (enquete)
- Patienten vinden het niet erg als de verzorger tijdens een deel van de handeling met tillift afwezig is.
Het vertrouwen van patienten in de moderne tillift zorgt voor minder behoefte aan ondersteuning van de verzorger
- Het vertrouwen hangt af van het design van het apparaat
- De mate van bekendheid met moderne technologie zorgt voor minder behoefte aan interactie tussen verzorger en patiënt. (enquete)
- De mate van bekendheid met een actieve of passieve tillift zorgt voor minder behoefte aan interactie tussen verzorger en patiënt. (enquete)
Planning
1) Informatievergaren (week 1-3) Interviews houden (week 2-4) Interview maken (week 2) (1uur) Afnemen (week 3) (8 uur) Verwerken en conclusie (week 4) (4 uur)
2) Enquêtes afnemen (week 2-4) Enquêtes maken (week2-3) ( https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScinjbrL8rMoxs1CQOP0JCgIO3u_tavH2K1LGRcKIa9q_bFVA/viewform Afnemen (week 3) (8uur) Verwerken en conclusie (week 4) (4uur)
3) Literatuuronderzoek (week 2-4) State-of the-art (9uur) Human-Robot interaction (9 uur) Specifiek (...uur)
4) 1e design maken (week 4-5) Tekening (optioneel 3D model) (week 5-6) (4uur) Beschrijving (week 5) (10 uur)
5) Eventueel prototype (week 5) Inlezen (3 à 4 uur) Programmeren (7 uur)
6) Feedback (autoritair) (week 4-6) (6uur)
7) Eventueel prototype testen (week 6) (10 uur)
8) Final design (week 7) (5 uur)
9) Wiki Week 2-6 (per persoon 1 uur per week voor aanvullen, in orde brengen etc) Week 7 (per persoon 2 uur)
Literature study : State of the art
A patient hoist is a mechanical device for lifting patient out of bed into a (wheel)chair. There are two kinds of hoists, the active and the passive one. The active hoist is meant for patient who still can stand up, but cannot move very well. It lift the patient from a bed to a standing-up position on the hoist, after which the patient can be moved to a chair. The passive hoist is used for patient who are too weak to stay standing up. It moves the patient in sitting position. (1) Most passive hoists consist of a frame with a sling attached to it. The patient get secured in the sling by the nurse and the hoist lifts the patient upwards. After that the hoist can be moved by the nurse towards the bed or chair afterwards the hoist lowers the patient onto the bed or chair. Finally, the nurse frees the patient from the sling. There are lot of different models for passive hoists. Most hoists move the patient along a vertical axis, after which the whole device can be moved by the nurse. Some work with a rail which can transport the patient over a horizontal axis, after the patient has been lifted up. These can be integrated into the room, or can be moved from bed to bed. An active hoist does not move the patient from a lying position to a seating position like the passive lift, but moves the patient from a seating to a standing position. It can be used to transport the patient, but sometimes the active hoist is only used to help the patient to stand after which he/she can walk him/herself, possibly with the help of a walker. This helps patient to maintain their mobility (2).
A lot of research has been done about the use of patient hoists in hospitals and nursing homes. Johnsen et al. (2004) (5) proposed a model that that simulated the balance between the nurse and the patient during a transfer task. The movement between the patient and the nurse should be harmonious, otherwise injuries can happen. Research has proven that a lot of difficulties exist with the current patient hoists. Even when a hoist is available nurses do not always use it. Several reasons are: “(..) lack of time and availability, difficulty of use, space constraints, and patient preferences.” (6). By including the nurses in the buying process and buying a powered lift instead of a mechanical one, a nursing home can improved the chance of the hoist actually being used. Furthermore a hoist cannot decrease the risk coming with lifting but can still reduce it significantly. (6) Despite several researches it is not clear what patient prefer. Some studies show that patient prefer a mechanical hoist, while other studies concluded that patient were more comfortable with a ceiling lift (5).
There have been several attempts to improve the passive hoists with help of robotics. One of the earliest attempts was in the period 1990-1992 in a study of Patrick A. Finlay (3). In this study it was recognized that several specification were needed. First the robot should be able to move the patient without injury. Of course, every patient is different and epically patient that have to be moved with hoist can have numerous of physical problems the robot has to take into account. The robot should also be able to collect the patient from a lot of different position and move them to a lot of other possible positions. Third, the robot should be able to move through a hospital without accidents. Finally, the robot should not work too slow, because otherwise nurses and patients find the waiting time not worth to use the robot. The decision was made to make it a nurse controlled device, to get the patients and nurses to slowly get used to it. A initial design for the robot, which was called the Patient Assistant for Mobility (PAM) was already made up: “The patient surface of PAM is made up of an array of slats or tines which, using a patented method of deployment, are able to be insinuated gently under the patient to support his/her weight and draw him/her onto the trolley surface. The patient surface has a Z-axis to adjust its height, is additionally articulated at the hip and knee joints, and can thus move to set the patient into a seated or other intermediate pose. (…) Sensors are used to monitor the stability of the platform, and as a useful by-product these are processed to provide a readout of patient weight. For patients with special nursing needs, selected tines can be disabled so that no contact is made with the corresponding part of the body. The patient surface has an autonomous acquisition capability, so that a single command enables a patient to be collected from a bed once the PAM is parked in approximately the correct orientation at the bedside. Articulation of the patient surface is normally in telemanipulator mode, but the PAM also contains a memory enabling details of patients and furniture to be stored, so that a collection and placement sequence can be played back whenever required.” (3)
Although this project started the demonstrator phase in 1992, it is unclear what happened with PAM after that.
Another attempt to improve the patient hoist was 2007, in a project led by Lakshitha Dantanarayana (4). In this project the author developed a smart hoist in collaboration with the resident and carers of residential care facility. Some adaptions they found to be useful were weight measurement, rear view mirrors, ability to monitor the environment and assisted manoeuvring. The researchers equipped a standard patient hoist with camera’s in the front, just above the floor to provide information about the part of the environment that is blocked from view by the hanging patient and implemented strain gauges into the design to measure the weight of patients. Other improvements were camera’s to monitor the environment behind the carers and robotic wheels. The patient hoist also had a navigation assistance algorithm implemented. The main change however was that patient hoist was motor driven, but still moved by applying forces to the handles. The force was measure by the hoist and a similar movement was applied by the motors. This ensured the hoist could be used intuitively, and the learning curve was short. Several users trials were executed, and the researchers implemented the feedback in the final design. There was no clear conclusion whether the smart hoist was better than the traditional hoist, but several points for improvement were found.
Besides the hoist other solutions for lifting patients are researched, like the HAL exoskeleton and the Japanese lifting robot RIBA, but those projects are beyond the scope of our research.
Work done so far
Week 2 presentatie 1 groep 1
Problem and subject/solution: Our current society is facing the societal dilemma of ageing, given that the ratio of care takers and caregivers is out of balance and will be expanded even more in the future. Considering the fact that technological advancements in health care are taking place, such as better treatment for diseases, also contributes to the increase of elderly people, because their lifespan is extended. Due to this, there will be lack of care givers in the future and therefore it will almost be inevitable that robots are partially taking over tasks. These tasks can not be of great complexity of course, as robots are unable to think autonomous like humans. From this point of view, we have come up with a good use for robots in which the relatively few human caregivers left in the future can focus on more important and risky care tasks which should not be given in the hands of robots, like for instance the use of robots in operating theatres. Our idea will be realized by the use of a ‘Lift Robot’ which will transfer patients, who are not able to relocate themselves anymore, in hospitals and nursing homes by lifting them. The patients can be transferred between for instance a bed and a chair or to places like restrooms etc. However, unlike already existing patient lifts, our ‘Lift Robot’ can work autonomous and will be able to interact with the patient during the transportation by using facial and speech recognition software. Due to this, the care robot is able to react to the patient’s behavior and can adapt or stop it’s action whenever the patient expresses he is uncomfortable or whatever. The human-robot interaction will play an important role in our design cycle. The ‘Lift Robot’ is beneficial for all sorts of groups. The human care givers for example can benefit from it, because they do not have to lift patients themselves anymore which is better for their own health by preventing back pain from heavy lifting and they do not need to assist the transportation anymore which is necessary with the current patient lifts so they can spare precious time and focus on their other care tasks. The health care system itself will also benefit from this technology, because a robot is able to work twenty four seven, it’s indefatigable. Further it does not need a salary to live. Another advantage is that more patients can be helped by human care givers when some parts of their tasks are taken over by robots.
Objective
The main objective of the project is to improve the interaction between a patient and a care robot. To be more specific, it can be divided into three sub-objectives.
The first one is regarding facial expression recognition, which is closely connected to the recognition of certain emotions. We will try to find out what techniques are already used. Also we will go further into the principle of Eckman’s faces, where there are a few basic emotions. If there is not an already existing technology, a new one has to be given thought to. This is important in order to make the robot able to detect facial expressions. Once these expressions or emotions are detected by the care robot, it can react properly to let the patient feel more comfortable. This reaction can vary from a verbal response to a physical action, where the care robot adjusts its lifting mechanism accordingly.
Secondly, it is of great importance to know what the general needs of patients are to feel comfortable as well as the needs of the nurses, so they are able to deliver good and comfortable care. By interviewing these groups of people certain knowledge will be gained, which should also be taken into account by designing the robotic system.
Which leads to the third and final sub-objective, where the optimal design specifications are discussed. On the one hand this includes the mechanical aspect of a comfortable and safe lifting movement and on the other hand the specific look of the care robot; whether it should be more human like and risking that the ‘uncanny valley’ becomes an issue or designing it in a more abstract way.
Use cases
This subject is in many ways related to USE-aspects. First of all there are many different stakeholders and users. The primary users are ofcourse the patients and the nurses. The secondary users are the people who pay for the robot, in this case the hospital management and the government. Also the family members of the patients are secondary users The tertiary users are the maintenance people and cleaners of the hospital. Because they have to take care of the robot, or work around it. The preferences of all these users have to be taken into account. For instance, the patients want the robot to be comforting, while the nurses want it easy to be used. The hospital management wants the robot to be made as cheap as possible and the maintenance people prefer the important components easy to repair or replace. This can lead to conflicts since it can be difficult to take all these preferences into account at the same time. We mainly focus on the preferences of the primary users. The main question is how you let a robot assist them without affecting their dignity and making them uncomfortable. An important aspect is the interaction between the robot and the patient. Do the patients want to be approached by the robot first or do they want to ask the robot for help themselves? Another aspect is how the robot will understand if he’s hurting the patient or not. Maybe he can ask the patient or scan their faces to see if they are in pain. But in this case another question arises: What if the patient is not able to communicate in that way anymore. Maybe the patient had a stroke, which paralyzed a part of his face, and thus the robot cannot read the face anymore. The patient could also has lost the ability to speak clearly to communicate with the robot. These problems should all be taken into account.
Approach
By creating a clear approach, the list of objectives can be answered with back up of different sources. Each method contains a brief description of the task that will be performed.
Interviews One of the objectives is verifiying what kind of needs both patients and care takers have. This will be tested by interviewing a number of nursary homes and private individuals, thus assesing a varierty of problems that can occur, as different institutions can have different sets of problems.The results of these interviews will be taken into account when the design of our ‘’Lift Robot’’ is made.
List of nursary homes around Eindhoven ( https://www.zorgkaartnederland.nl/zorginstelling )
Experiments Furthermore, to test the recognition of emotions, as this is one of the key concepts that will make our ‘’Lift Robot’’ unique, we will conduct an experiment. This experiment makes use of a webcam and software, which is able to spot the micro-expressions of the face of an user, and validate in what state the user is currently. If the outcome of this experiment is postive, thus being a good method to recognize the emotions of the patient, we will use it in our ‘’Lift Robot’’. This makes it possible to tell if the patient is at ease or experiencing a form of discomfort, where the ‘’Lift Robot’’ will react upon.
Companies with software: -> http://emovu.com/e/ -> Software Marissa
Literature study As some of the information of our subject may already been researched, we will conduct a study in literature, by assesing databases on scientific research like the library of the TU/E and Focus. This will give us a better idea about current robots that can perform a similair task and get an idea of their imperfections.
Milestones In the upcoming week this approach will be extended with milestones, setting dates for each of our methods and dividing the tasks so that we will make optimal use of our time.
Conclusion: We think the ‘Lift Robot’ will be an advantage for all kind of groups. Although users can have diverse opinions about the use of robots during the interaction with humans. Some fear there will be less human personal contact, others are more comfortable with the human-robot interaction, because it increases their independence on other humans and streamlines the care process. Our believe is that using this system will make human caregivers be able to work more efficiently. So our goal will be to satisfy as many stakeholders as possible, but the main focus will lie on the preferences of the primary users. Of course it should be comfortable for the users by improving the interaction between patient and care robot. To do so we will look at current state of the art by a literature study to complete our design. We will also be taking into account the opinion of the users to make it as comfortable as possible by taking interviews and we will test facial/emotion recognition by experiments. Further, in the upcoming week this approach will be extended with milestones, setting dates for each of our methods and dividing the tasks so that we will make optimal use of our time. We strongly believe that our ‘Lift Robot’ can be usefull for human beings.
Interview questions
Interview vragen:
Vragen voor verzorger:
1. Hoe lang werkt u al in de zorg?
2. Hoeveel ervaring heeft u met het verplaatsen van cliënten uit bed?
3. Ervaart u het tillen als een lastig en zwaar onderdeel van uw baan?
4. Wat komt er, buiten het fysieke gedeelte, nog meer bij het optillen van een cliënt kijken?
5. Maakt u wel eens gebruik van een tillift, zo ja, welk type?
6. Hoe ervaart u het gebruik van de tillift?
7. Welke onderdelen van het proces maken tillen lastig voor u?
8. Hoe is de interactie tussen u en de cliënt?
9. Hoe gaat u ermee om als de cliënt angstig wordt?
10. Waaraan herkent u dat een cliënt angst ervaart?
11. In hoeverre is sociale interactie van belang?
12. Is er behoefte vanuit uw kant voor een tillift die de client meer kan geruststellen?
13. En als deze weet wanneer de cliënt pijn ervaart zich hierbij kan corrigeren?
14. Wat zijn voor u de voordelen van de huidige tillift?
15. Wat kan er volgens u verbeterd worden aan de huidige tillift?
Vragen voor cliënt/patiënt:
1) Hoeveel ervaring heeft u met de tillift? (van en naar welke locatie?)
2) Hoe ervaart u het tillen door de tillift?
3) Bent u wel eens bang/angstig tijdens het tilproces?
4) Bent u tevreden over de tillift of niet? Wat is er bijvoorbeeld fijn of juist vervelend etc?
5) / Wat zijn voor u de voor- en nadelen van de tillift?
6) (Maakt u liever gebruik van de tillift om verplaatst te worden of vindt u het fijner als verzorgers het tilwerk verrichten?)
7) Hoe is de interactie tussen u en de verzorger bij het tilproces?
8) Vindt u de sociale interactie met de verzorger van belang/belangrijk tijdens het tilproces?
9) Wat zou u ervan vinden als de tillift (meer) autonoom zou werken? (dus verzorger niet bij hele tilproces nodig)
10) Wat zou u ervan vinden als de tillift zelf voor de sociale interactie tijdens het tilproces kan zorgen (u op uw gemak stellen, uitleg geeft over wat er gaat gebeuren etc.)
11) -->En op uw signalen kan inspelen als iets bijvoorbeeld niet prettig voor u verloopt? (verkeerde houding, drukt op zere plek etc.)
12) Wat kan er volgens u verbeterd worden aan de huidige tillift?
NOTES
Meetings
Meeting week 1
Deadlines:
Info (Jochem, Jesse, Jasmijn): Donderdag 14:00 Presentatie Marissa: Vrijdag 12:00 Presentatie Jesse: Zondag
Eerste presentatie: Marissa en Jesse
Iedereen: literatuur onderzoek
Probleemstelling : Nicky oude mensen, vergrijzing, op langere termijn meer mensen in de zorg nodig dienstverleners in de zorg hebben zware lasten doelgroepen -> verwijzing naar users leuke getallen (hoeveel verzorgers zijn er? Hoe veel hulp is er nodig? Hoe concreet zijn de problemen?) en bronnen noemen nieuwe plan & doel is een robot die meer focust op de interactie door middel van gezichts/emotie herkenning
Onderwerp/ keuze : Nicky mogelijke oplossingen nieuwe plan & doel is een robot die meer focust op de interactie door middel van gezichts/emotie herkenning
Use cases : Jasmijn primare, secondaire, tertaire users use probleem: mensen die een beroerte hebben gehad zijn moeilijk om gezichten van af te lezen, of mensen die blind zijn kunnen geen oogcontact hebben. Hoe kijken mensen tegen een robot aan? Willen mensen automatisch benaderd worden? Of willen ze eerst toestemming geven?
Objectives : Jochem · Objective: Describe the specific objectives for the project[1], which should be clear, measurable, realistic and achievable within the duration of the project. Objectives should be consistent with the expected exploitation and impact of the project (see section 2). hoofddoel wat hebben mensen nodig om op hun gemak te voelen? -> interviews herkenning van emoties om mensen op hun gemak te stellen optimale design specifications van een tilrobot/ mechanisme patiënten behoeftes en behoeften van verzorger, en hoe ga je dit implementeren in de robot?
Aanpak : Jesse interview experiment- webcam en software iets met de robot? planning komt nog, met milestones etc.
Conclusie : Nicky herhaling/ terugkoppeling van probleemstelling: toekomstperspectief
Meeting week 2.1
13-9 Meeting 2
Feedback na de presentatie: De mannen zagen de link niet zo goed tussen robots en gezichtsherkenning. ze wisten niet of facial recognition de interactie echt verbeterd. ze zagen het nut van een til-robot niet zo goed, is dit wel de beste manier? “bed die veranderdt in een stoel” We moeten dingen kwantificeren, meer getallen en bronnen (meer statistieken) Is er vraag naar? Hoe weet je welke interactie wel/ niet goed is.
Updates: Jesse heeft met een verzorgster gepraat, kwamen opvallende dingen uit. Dit zal nog verwerkt worden naar een kwantitatief report. Let op! Altijd als je iemand interviewt moet je een informed consent form laten invullen (staat in de drive)
Nicky heeft met haar moeder gepraat, die twijfelde of de tilrobot wel een goed mechanisme was omdat het gevaarlijk kan zijn. Hoe speelt de robot in op verwondingen?
Het plan: we gaan ons richten op het optimaliseren/ automatiseren van een bestaande passieve tillift. Hierbij willen we een aspect van interactie toevoegen. De precieze interactie moeten we later nog verder uitzoeken, maar een van de dingen waar we gewoon zeker mee aan de slag kunnen is een webcam en eventuele gezichtserkenning software. En een apart scherm waarop de verzorger het in de gaten kunnen houden. Ook nog iets met de afleiding van de patiënt. Aspecten voor verbetering: de verzorger hoeft er niet de hele tijd bij te staan de geruststelling van de patient kan/ moet beter, hoe kan dit? Gezichtsherkenning? Hoe kan het begin/ einde van het tillen beter? Dat de persoon niet de hele tijd heen en weer hoeft te sjorren. Let op! Deze aspecten moeten uit ons onderzoek blijken
Design/ concept: We willen naar een verzorgingstehuis waarbij we zelf opgetild worden door een tillift, en hierbij kunnen we dan onze eigen interactie toepassen. Dit is ter illustratie tijdens onze eindpresentatie
Aanpak: we beginnen met enquetes (quantitatief onderzoek) 1 a 2 interviews over welke aspecten van interactie iets zouden kunnen toevoegen (qualitatief onderzoek) Tegelijkertijd moet er uitgebreid literatuur onderzoek gedaan worden, over de bestaande tillift, wat is goede geautomatiseerde zorg? En iets over de interactie. Wanneer enquetes en interviews zijn gedaan kunnen de statiestieken geanalyseerd worden (mooie cijfers en grafiekjes in eventueel spss) En dan?
Wat we moeten uitzoeken: de goede interactie die we kunnen toepassen hoe wil een persoon behandeld worden, en wat wil de verzorger? Hoe kunnen we de tillift verbeteren zodat de persoon niet helemaal heen en weer hoeft te schuiven? Dat er niet gesjord hoeft te worden!
Planning: Jesse: Voor zaterdag: vragenlijst maken en interview houden Nicky: Voor zaterdag: helpen met de vragenlijst en ook interview houden Vergeet niet de informed consent form Jasmijn: Literatuur onderzoek + artikel over stat-of-the art Jochem: Planning maken, dit wordt donderdag nog besproken: ook in de planning wie wat doet, milestones, deadlines etc Marissa: Voor zaterdag: Vragen voor en enquêtes opstellen en alvast opzet in spss voor de mogelijke verbanden Bellen naar Noldes voor gezichtssoftware
En er moet nog gepresenteerd worden
Meeting week 2.2
15-09-2016 Meeting 2.2
Planning maken:
Milestones:
- Informatievergaren (week 1-3)
1) Interviews houden (week 2-4) Interview maken (week 2) (1uur) Afnemen (week 3) (8 uur) Verwerken en conclusie (week 4) (4 uur)
2) Enquêtes afnemen (week 2-4) Enquêtes maken (week2-3) ( Afnemen (week 3) (8uur) Verwerken en conclusie (week 4) (4uur)
3) Literatuuronderzoek (week 2-4) State-of the-art (9uur) Human-Robot interaction (9 uur) Specifiek (...uur)
4) 1e design maken (week 4-5) Tekening (optioneel 3D model) (week 5-6) (4uur) Beschrijving (week 5) (10 uur)
5) Eventueel prototype (week 5) Inlezen (3 à 4 uur) Programmeren (7 uur)
6) Feedback (autoritair) (week 4-6) (6uur)
7) Eventueel prototype testen (week 6) (10 uur) 8) Final design (week 7) (5 uur)
9) Wiki Week 2-6 (per persoon 1 uur per week voor aanvullen, in orde brengen etc) Week 7 (per persoon 2 uur)
Week 2: Intervieuws maken: JE (1uur, vragen verzinnen), N (1uur, vragen verzinnen) Interviews afnemen: JE (2uur), JO(2uur), N(2uur) (antwoorden op vragen digitaliseren) Presentatie maken en voorbereiden: JO (2uur), N(2uur) (pp maken) Literatuuronderzoek (state-of-the art): JA (3uur) (lijst met gevonden artikelen en al beginnen aan uitwerken etc.) Enquêtes maken: M( 2uur) ( Planning maken: JE, JO, JA, N (4uur) Meeting: (3uur)
Week 3: Literatuuronderzoek (state-of-the art): JA (6uur) (samenvatting), Literatuuronderzoek (Human-Robot interaction) JE(3 uur), JO (3uur), N(3uur), M(3uur) (ljst met gevonden artikelen + sam) Enquêtes afnemen: iedereen (8 uur) Interviews afnemen: JE (2uur), JO(2uur), N(2uur) (antwoorden op vragen digitaliseren) Meeting: literatuurverdelen, feedback verwerken,
Week 4: Enquêtes verwerken: M( 4 uur), JA(4 uur) Interviews verwerken: JO, N, JE (12uur) Meeting: 1e design maken IEDEREEN (donderdag 20uur) Literatuuronderzoek (specifiek): JA(5uur), JE(5uur)
Week 5a: Meeting:design uitwerken IEDEREEN (20uur) Voorbereiden prototype, info opzoeken etc: JE, JO (8uur) (hulp vragen) Prototype maken: JE, JO (8uur) Onderzoeksplan:N, M en JA (4uur) Tekening: N, M en JA (4uur)
Week 5b: Meeting:design uitwerken IEDEREEN (20uur) Voorbereiden 3D-programma, info opzoeken etc: JE, JO (8uur) (hulp vragen) 3D-model maken: JE, JO (8uur) Tekening: N, M en JA (4uur) (Visio of SketchUp) Feedback: N, M en JA (4uur)
Week 6a: Prototype testen: IEDEREEN (10uur) Meeting: IEDEREEN (20uur) Buffer
Week 6b: Feedback: N, M en JA (4uur) verwerken Meeting: IEDEREEN (20uur) Buffer:
Week 2-6: Per week 5 uur aan wiki besteden (1uur p.p)
Week 7: ‘Eindredactie’ Wiki in orde maken: N, JA (8uur) Meeting: Final Design bespreken, tekening aanpassen, 3D-model aanpassen IEDEREEN (20uur) Conclusie/ samenvattend A4: N, JO (4uur) Presentatie maken
Presentatie 19-09-2016: N en JO
Samenvattend waarom deze tillift verbeteren etc...minder mensen in de zorg etc…
Nu: Eng voor patiënten...internet opzoeken main issues huidige lift
intro: onderwerp klein beetje aangepast, specifieker, huidige liftmodel automatiseren en interactie verbeteren → blijkt uit interviews en enquêtes en literatuuronderzoek zoals straks blijkt uit planning
Geinspireerd door design cyclus (Design cyclus: scope(2-3), analyse(4), design(4-5), validate(6) and deliver(7-8)) → planning op gebasseerd → zie hier: JO:week 2 etc
Per week scope, analyse etc erbij noemen
Deliverables, einddoelen
Eindzin
N: inleiding, 4, 6a,b JO: 2-3, 5a,b, 7, 8 + afronding
Delivirables: presentatie, (poster),
To do list t/m eind week 2:
JO: presentatie, interview afnemen
JA: literatuuronderzoek
JE: interview afnemen
M: enquête afmaken
N: presentatie, eventueel interview
Results of interviews
Interview 1:
Interview 2:
Interview 3:
Interview 4:
Results of enquete
Results:
Literature search
Literature sites
Face Detection and Recogniton (theory) http://www.crcnetbase.com/isbn/9781482226577
Family relations http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6981146/
Reliability facial recognition http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11042-013-1568-8
Experimentation in humanitarian locations: UNHCR and biometric registration of Afghan refugees http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/46/2/144.full.pdf+html
Biometric solution for South Africa's refugees http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969476506705859
500,000 refugees are searching for missing family https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/ericsson-refugees-search-for-missing-family/
Without Help, Families Face Lonely Search for Europe’s Missing Refugee Children http://thewire.in/42383/without-help-families-face-lonely-search-for-europes-missing-refugee-children/
Facial recognition software spots family resemblance http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0262407911630236
toepassing: Emotion/face recognition API’s http://nordicapis.com/20-emotion-recognition-apis-that-will-leave-you-impressed-and-concerned/ https://www.microsoft.com/cognitive-services/en-us/emotion-api
Literature study JA (16-09-2016)
A patient hoist is a mechanical device for lifting patient out of bed into a (wheel)chair. There are two kinds of hoists, the active and the passive one. The active hoist is meant for patient who still can stand up, but cannot move very well. It lift the patient from a bed to a standing-up position on the hoist, after which the patient can be moved to a chair. The passive hoist is used for patient who are too weak to stay standing up. It moves the patient in sitting position. (1) Most passive hoists consist of a frame with a sling attached to it. The patient get secured in the sling by the nurse and the hoist lifts the patient upwards. After that the hoist can be moved by the nurse towards the bed or chair afterwards the hoist lowers the patient onto the bed or chair. Finally, the nurse frees the patient from the sling. There are lot of different models for passive hoists. Most hoists move the patient along a vertical axis, after which the whole device can be moved by the nurse. Some work with a rail which can transport the patient over a horizontal axis, after the patient has been lifted up. These can be integrated into the room, or can be moved from bed to bed. An active hoist does not move the patient from a lying position to a seating position like the passive lift, but moves the patient from a seating to a standing position. It can be used to transport the patient, but sometimes the active hoist is only used to help the patient to stand after which he/she can walk him/herself, possibly with the help of a walker. This helps patient to maintain their mobility (2).
There have been several attempts to improve the passive hoists with help of robotics. One of the earliest attempts was in the period 1990-1992 in a study of Patrick A. Finlay (3). In this study it was recognized that several specification were needed. First the robot should be able to move the patient without injury. Of course, every patient is different and epically patient that have to be moved with hoist can have numerous of physical problems the robot has to take into account. The robot should also be able to collect the patient from a lot of different position and move them to a lot of other possible positions. Third, the robot should be able to move through a hospital without accidents. Finally, the robot should not work too slow, because otherwise nurses and patients find the waiting time not worth to use the robot. The decision was made to make it a nurse controlled device, to get the patients and nurses to slowly get used to it.
A initial design for the robot, which was called the Patient Assistant for Mobility (PAM) was already made up:
“The patient surface of PAM is made up of an array of slats or tines which, using a patented method of deployment, are able to be insinuated gently under the patient to support his/her weight and draw him/her onto the trolley surface. The patient surface has a Z-axis to adjust its height, is additionally articulated at the hip and knee joints, and can thus move to set the patient into a seated or other intermediate pose. (…) Sensors are used to monitor the stability of the platform, and as a useful by-product these are processed to provide a readout of patient weight. For patients with special nursing needs, selected tines can be disabled so that no contact is made with the corresponding part of the body.
The patient surface has an autonomous acquisition capability, so that a single command enables a patient to be collected from a bed once the PAM is parked in approximately the correct orientation at the bedside. Articulation of the patient surface is normally in telemanipulator mode, but the PAM also contains a memory enabling details of patients and furniture to be stored, so that a collection and placement sequence can be played back whenever required.” (3)
Although this project started the demonstrator phase in 1992, it is unclear what happened with PAM after that.�
1) http://www.domicare.nl/tilliften-badliften-verrijdbaar/
2) http://www.arjohuntleigh.nl/producten/transfer-oplossingen/actieve-tilliften/