Difference between revisions of "Team:Oxford/Applied Design Solution"
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
| − | < | + | <h2>Using the kit<h2> |
<p> <center> <img class="img-responsive";" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e8/T--oxford--applieddesignflowchart.png"><h6>Figure 4: Diagnostic Procedure Flowchart</h6> | <p> <center> <img class="img-responsive";" src="https://static.igem.org/mediawiki/2017/e/e8/T--oxford--applieddesignflowchart.png"><h6>Figure 4: Diagnostic Procedure Flowchart</h6> | ||
</center></p> | </center></p> | ||
| − | < | + | <h2>Review of our kit by healthcare professionals</h2> |
<p>We presented our prototype model to two healthcare professionals in order to re-evaluate our current kit. Recommendations gathered would be implemented into the future versions of our kit.</p> | <p>We presented our prototype model to two healthcare professionals in order to re-evaluate our current kit. Recommendations gathered would be implemented into the future versions of our kit.</p> | ||
| − | < | + | <h3>Mrs Sarah Dragonetti (Registered Nurse)</h3> |
Findings: | Findings: | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
| − | < | + | <h3>Dr Ben Riley (General Practice)</h3> |
Findings: | Findings: | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
These were very useful comments: they support some aspects of our current design, but also propose some changes which would further improve the end-user experience. | These were very useful comments: they support some aspects of our current design, but also propose some changes which would further improve the end-user experience. | ||
| − | < | + | <h3>Overall recommendations:</h3> |
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li> Make the case transparent: prevents pipette errors but is more cost-effective than a window | <li> Make the case transparent: prevents pipette errors but is more cost-effective than a window | ||
Latest revision as of 00:53, 2 November 2017
Applied Design
Our Solution
Current Kit
Our current kit meets our criteria established from our 4E’s framework: it is effective, easy-to-use, economically viable and environmentally safe. A prototype version was designed using CAD software and 3D printed.
Figure 3: Annotated diagram of our kit
Using the kit
Figure 4: Diagnostic Procedure Flowchart
Review of our kit by healthcare professionals
We presented our prototype model to two healthcare professionals in order to re-evaluate our current kit. Recommendations gathered would be implemented into the future versions of our kit.
Mrs Sarah Dragonetti (Registered Nurse)
Findings:- Flat, rectangular pipette hole fits well
- Timestrip would be a useful tool during busy periods
- Good size and good shape - feels intuitive
- A window would allow you to see whether the pipette was emptied, preventing someone from accidentally drawing blood back up
- A red case would make it difficult to see the blood through the window, so white or translucent casing would be better
- Unclear on actual device when to click together the two components
- Unclear whether pipette should stay in kit or be taken out (and when)
Dr Ben Riley (General Practice)
Findings:- Kit is sealed so no worry about blood containment
- Ideal cost should be comparable to a one-use diabetes test strip (~£3)
- Size and shape is good for packaging and transport
- Distinctive shape will make it easy to identify
Overall recommendations:
- Make the case transparent: prevents pipette errors but is more cost-effective than a window
- Make the key instructions as clear as possible, and include these within the kit
- Evaluate the cost of the device (which we have presented below)
Sponsors
