1 / 27

IV Tubing Organizer

IV Tubing Organizer. Blake Hondl, Amit Mehta, Ryan Pope, Kristen Sipsma, April Zehm, Katie Zenker BME 200/300 October 10, 2003.

viho
Télécharger la présentation

IV Tubing Organizer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IV Tubing Organizer Blake Hondl, Amit Mehta, Ryan Pope, Kristen Sipsma, April Zehm, Katie Zenker BME 200/300 October 10, 2003

  2. Client:Dr. Tim Corden, M.DMedical Director, Pediatric Critical Care UnitUW Children's HospitalAdvisor:Professor Willis TompkinsDepartment of Biomedical Engineering

  3. Overview • Problem Statement • Background • Design Constraints • Design Alternatives • Proposed Design • Potential Problems • Questions

  4. Problem Statement • The goal of this project is to create an IV tubing organizer to prevent entanglement of several IV lines, while maintaining the functionality of an IV tube.

  5. Background Information • Pediatric Patients • Critical Care • Multiple IV lines • Confusion and entanglement of lines • Stationary vs. Transport • Places Patient at Risk

  6. Design Constraints • Safe for patient • Does not occlude IV line • Lightweight and inexpensive • Disposable, but reloadable • Need not be sterile • Non-magnetic materials • User friendly • Ideal: two-sided length adjustment

  7. Design Alternatives • Spool Design • Dual Gears with Crank Design • Reel with Crank Design

  8. Design #1: Spool Design • No mechanical device • IV tubing wound around a cylindrical rod • Held in place by restricting bar • Give-and-take relationship • Inefficient

  9. Design #2: Dual Gears with Crank • Two large toothed gears in contact another • Powered by manual crank • Temporary storage compartment • Mechanism of physically guiding the tubing • Lack of organization

  10. Design #3: Reel with Crank • Similar to garden hose reel • IV tubing reeled around grooves in the disk • One end is fixed and other is mobile

  11. Chosen Design Advantages • Total control over amount of IV line necessary • Reduced patient injury • Fixed end directed toward patient • Adjustable end towards syringe pump • Moves with patient transport • Minimize clutter

  12. Device Placement • Bed side • Clamped to railings • Efficient for transport http://www.strykercorp.com/products/beds.htm

  13. Potential Problems • Clamp has to be non-magnetic • Interference with MRI • Fixed end • Long enough to anticipate patient movement • Only addresses a single line • Multiple devices needed for multiple lines

  14. Design Possibilities • Auto-Retractable Hose Reel • Auto-Retractable Line Holder • Manual-Retractable Line Holder

  15. Auto-Retractable Hose Reel • Good Points • Tube well contained • Exposed length controlled • Bad Points • Special Fittings • Difficult Tube Change • Uncontrolled Recoil

  16. Exploded Hose Reel http://airhosereels.com

  17. Auto-Retractable Channel Holder • Similar to an Arrow Quiver • Foam Rubber Holders • Hard Plastic Shell

  18. Auto-Retractable Line Holder • Good Points • Easy Tube Change • Multiple Tubes • Labeling system • Bad Points • Tube Less Contained • Metal in Retractable Reel

  19. Manual-RetractableLine Holder • Good Points • Easy Tube Change • Multiple Tubes • Labeling system • Special Fishing Reel Features • Bad Points • Tube Less Contained

  20. Proposed Solution • Manually Retractable Line Holder • Quick to prototype • Cheap, by using existing technologies • Fulfills Special Requirements of Client • Easy Tube Changes • Tube Labeling System

  21. Design Options • Coiled Container • Spring Loaded Tubing Retractor • Spindle With Hand Crank

  22. Design 1: Coiled Container from pump to patient • Remove cover, wind tubing around central core, replace cover • Lengths variable on both sides • Simple to use • Time consuming to operate core TOP VIEW Cover Base SIDE VIEW

  23. Design 2: Spring Loaded Tubing Retractor TOP VIEW—Level #1 • Cover is removed, tubing is attached to spring • Automatic retraction • Safety lock • More complicated • Increased tension on tubing IV tubing channel to patient lock Connection between tubing and spring spring (underneath the plate) from pump IV tubing channel to patient lock spring (underneath the plate) plate Connection between tubing and spring from pump TOP VIEW—Level #2

  24. Design 3: Spindle With Hand Crank notch—tubing goes to patient (on back side) • Tubing slides through notch to core • Hand crank winds tubing to desired length • Hand crank is folded down • Lengths variable on both ends • Easy to operate core notch—tubing is from pump (on back side) hand crank side piece FRONT VIEW 1” notch—tubing goes to patient (on back side) 3” core hand crank SIDE VIEW

  25. Proposed Solution: Design 3 • Safety—no applied tension • Efficient—no cover to remove • Little training required • Mechanically simple • Durable • Potential Problems: • Only organizes one IV tube • Requires plastic molding

  26. Future Work • Group meeting with 3 design proposals • Discuss options with client • Choose final design • Acquire materials and build prototype • Present prototype to client

  27. Questions?

More Related