1. Development of Proposal for improvement of Brachytherapy Procedure

 

 

Development of Proposal for improvement of Brachytherapy Procedure

 

Problem:Patient has to be shifted from transport bed to MR/CT table as well as radiation therapy bed. These movement increase risk of catheter movement.

A multifunctional transport bed

NEED Statement: A multifunctional transport bed with integrated stretcher and vacuum mattress is proposed as a solution.

Beneficiary: Patient, Assistant surgeon, Nurse

Description:

  • A vacuum mattress is used for immobilization of the patient in case of spine injury. Also ensures patient’s stabilization due to simple slats and strap.
  • A slightly bigger than normal size stretcher is constructed so that the patient can be positioned on the top of the operation/transport bed and then the whole construction would be moved slowly down to the operation table without shaking.
  • A vacuum mattress is added on the surface of the stretcher in order to keep the patient lying in stable position.

Result:

  • Movement of catheter caused by carrying patient and patient motion can be avoided.
  • Lesser chance of injury during transporting patient from one bed to another
  • Less workload on nurse and other medical staff at OR during surgery

Please evaluate our project here

Bed for brachytherapy

1. Survey html page

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Development of Proposal for improvement of Brachytherapy Procedure”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

2. Brain Aneurysm

 

 

Brain Aneurysm

 

Problem:Surgeon has to stretch his hand for manipulating C-arm positions and movements.

An infrared LED system to maneuver C-arm position

NEED Statement: Develop an infrared LED system to maneuver C arm position automatically.

Beneficiary:Surgeon, Assistant surgeon

Description:

  • For controlling c-arm movements, during the time of image acquisition the relative position of the patient and the C-arm is measured and stored in position memory (in computer).
  • Special cameras are used to accurately track the positions of opto-electronically trackable marker shields containing infrared (IR) light-emitting diodes (LEDs) which are affixed to the C-arm.
  • The LEDs on shield are detected by the camera which monitors C-arm movement, position memory calculates the C-arm position in the coordinate space of tracking system.
  • The C-arm movement is then calibrated and registered with the stitched image

Result:

  • Allows surgeon to easily manipulate C-arm simply by using the scroll bars on a touch screen.
  • Possible to move the C-arm automatically in desired direction and make exposure with or without contrast agent

Please evaluate our project here

2. Brain Aneurysm Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Brain Aneurysm”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

3. Endoscopic procedure and tumour treatment in the neck

 

 

Endoscopic procedure and tumour treatment in the neck

 

Problem:Surgeon needs to manually adjust his seat by hand.

A Surgeon chair with a foot pedal control

NEED Statement: Manufacture a Surgeon’s chair with a foot pedal control.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Patient

Description:This chair makes it easier to find ergonomic and comfortable position for the surgeon to perform surgery

Result:

  • Seat position can be adjusted solely by feet
  • Sterile since surgeon does not use his hand for adjustment
  • Autonomous as surgeon does not need any help to change the adjustment
  • The product is a combination of already existing techniques so it can be constructed fast and cheap

Please evaluate our project here

3. Endoscopic procedure Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Endoscopic procedure and tumour treatment in the neck”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

4. Urology Observation

 

 

Urology Observation

 

Problem:Due to inflexibility of resectoscope surgeon has to often stand up to re-grab, twist arm and wrist to get better access.

A typical translation adapter

NEED Statement: Insert a translation adapter which works in the “door handle range”(30-150 degrees)

Beneficiary: Surgeons working with AR or VR

Description: Turn the next third and work further comfortably without twisting the wrist

Result: No twisting of wrist for surgeon

Please evaluate our project here

4. Urology Observation Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Urology Observation”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

5. Angiography: Stenosis in internal carotid artery

 

 

Angiography: Stenosis in internal carotid artery

 

Problem:Current lead glass radiation restricts work environment of the physician.

A typical lead glass radiation shielding with more degrees of freedom

NEED Statement:Introduce a lead glass radiation shielding with more degrees of freedom.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Patient

Description:

  • Lead glass is separated into more parts enabling more degrees of freedom. Hence improved possibilities of personalized positioning and optimal radiation shielding
  • Scattered radiation can be measured before and after implementation of new product to deduce reduced amount of radiation

Result: Improvement of work environment and improve physician’s safety

Please evaluate our project here

5. Angiography Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Angiography: Stenosis in internal carotid artery”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

6. Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm

 

 

SURGGLES: A lightweight microscopic glass

 

Problem: Surgeon has to wear microscopic lens throughout the surgery which is quite tiring as the lens is heavy. The glass needs to be fixed by nurse during the surgery which increases risk of contamination as well.

NEED Statement: Introduce a light weight microscopic glasses with an inbuilt light system and a camera to solve this problem.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Nurse

Description: Features of SURGGLES:

  • No flipping or slipping
  • High Magnification up to 5 times the normal view
  • Real time recording and wirelessly transmitting the data
  • Source of x-ray in a flexible medium for virtual visualization of blood vessel
  • Command − focusing zooming
  • Gas Sterilize
  • Motion Sensor − Procedure documentation

Result:

  • Surgeon can work with more comfort
  • No risk of being contaminated by any external factor as no other staff needs to fix the surgeon’s glass

Please evaluate our project here

6. Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “SURGGLES: A lightweight microscopic glass”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

7. Laryngeal cancerous tissue - biopsy and two other surgeries

 

 

 

Split view display for ultrasound and endoscopic view

Problem:Surgeon faces difficulty to navigate the target area with portable ultrasound and the endoscopic view simultaneously.

NEED Statement: Introduce a split view display allowing ultrasound and endoscopic view in one screen.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Patient, Administrator

Description:

  • The endoscopic and ultrasound views register themselves
  • When the surgeon moves with the instruments the ultrasound will show the directions indicating the movement to the tool
  • Hence the surgeon can confirm his movement to the target area

Result:

  • Faster procedure time enabling more surgeries to be performed
  • Better navigation hence better accuracy to detect target region

Please evaluate our project here

 

7. Laryngeal cancerous tissue Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Split view display for ultrasound and endoscopic view”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

8. ORTHOMETRIC: A procedure oriented measurement streamlining & analysis toolkit

 

Problem:Circulating nurse and surgical technician has to manually count the surgical sponges/gauzes in the disposal bin.

NEED Statement: Introduce a Radio-Frequency Identification tag micro-fabricated to the gauzes to count automatically.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Assistant surgeon, Patient, Circulating Nurse

Description:

  • Autocount is facilitated with a RF code scanner placed over disposal bin
  • This system has ability to count multiple sponges at once without separation
  • Requires no line of sight technology preventing separating out the soiled sponges from the bin

Result:

  • Deadly mistake like leaving gauge inside patient’s body can be avoided
  • Less workload for circulating nurse and surgical technician

Please evaluate our project here

8. ORTHOMETRIC survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “RF Identification tag to gauze”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

9. Automatic draining device

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Automatic draining device

Problem: Waste fluid containers have to be drained manually which requires high workload for nurse and interrupts workflow of the surgeon as the containers need to be drained up to twelve times.

NEED Statement: Build an automated draining device to drain waste during surgery.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Circulating Nurse

Description:

  • The Automatic draining device consists of a measuring unit, a pump, two waste fluid containers and a control unit.
  • As the first container fills up and reaches a certain level the pump switches to the other container and the first container is drained.
  • Hence one container is always being filled while the other container is drained.
  • A control unit, indicated by the touch screen, interacts with the measuring unit and the pump. This control unit also acts as a user interface where the values can be read out and the pressure can be set to a certain value.

Result:

  • Quantitative monitoring of blood volume
  • Automatic draining of waste fluid
  • Automatic changing of container
  • Continuous workflow without any break

Please evaluate our project here

9. Automatic draining device Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Automatic draining device”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

10. TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Problem: An imminent risk of releasing debris into the bloodstream which can potentially block blood flow resulting a cerebrovascular stroke.

NEED Statement: Introduce a model which fuses the debris filter into the Lotus valve system and eliminates the need for more incisions.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Patient

Description:

  • The proposed catheter consists of three layers:
    • 1st layer − balloon catheter with stent and valve mounted
    • 2nd layer − debris filter
    • 3rd layer − filter cover
    • After the stent is approximately in the right position, the third layer starts to pull back. As the third layer uncovers the filter, the filter starts expanding and covers the whole diameter of the Aortic valve.
    • After the filter covers the whole diameter of the Aorta, the balloon starts expanding to place the valve in place. As the calcifications in the old valve are released, they get caught in the filter on their way.
    • The net then can be closed to hold the calcifications while pulling the catheter back out.

    Result:

    • Only one single filter is used which reduces complexity, expenditure time and cost
    • The filter is contained in the same catheter as the stent, resulting in no need to make more incisions and reducing time and complexity of the procedure

    Please evaluate our project here

10. TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Debris filter into a Lotus valve system”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

11. Interventional Orthopaedic Surgery (Total Hip Arthroplasty)

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Automated gauze counting bin using photoelectric sensor

Problem: Human error of counting number of gauge pads being used during a surgery.

NEED Statement: Introduce a bin attached with photoelectric sensor for counting to reduce human error and workload of nurse

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Circulating nurse, Scrub nurse

Description:

  • The photoelectric sensor consists of a receiver and a transmitter
  • When a gauze pad is dropped inside the bin, the light from the transmitter to the receiver gets interrupted
  • This signal triggers the microcontroller to increment the count. The display unit attached to the microcontroller displays the value of number of gauze pads in the bin.
  • An option to reset via microcontroller

Result:

  • The photoelectric sensor will assist the nurse to count gauze pad in the bin
  • Less chance of human error as sensor will automatically detect the pads when it falls into the bin
  • Reduced workload for nurse

Please evaluate our project here

11. Interventional Orthopaedic Surgery (Total Hip Arthroplasty)

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Automated gauze counting bin using photoelectric sensor”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

12. Dialysis: review and innovation

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Dialysis: review and innovation

Problem: IV access is not always successful on the first attempt leading to cause complications due to extra attempts by surgeon and extra wounds on patient

NEED Statement: Introduce a system that can integrate ultrasonic imaging smoothly into vascular access procedure.

Beneficiary: Patient, Surgeon, Nurse

Description:

  • The system would be composed of: An attachment point for an ultrasound probe, linked to a system capable of performing Doppler ultrasonography to quickly locate and discriminate veins and arteries
  • A needle guide, adjustable in depth and approach angle, able to accommodate needle sizes and formats that are widely used in vascular access. Advancement of the needle would be performed manually
  • An algorithm or add-on to the ultrasound system software, which would compare the diameter of a previously saved target blood vessel to the current image, and inform the system operator if the system is no longer aligned to the center of the target blood vessel.

Result:

  • Useful for medical staff for basic access for vascular treatments
  • Reduce complication rate and average procedure time
  • Affordable as it does not contain complex components and ultrasound probes have already achieved widespread deployment in hospitals
  • Market demand is quite large as vascular access is needed in all major surgeries

Please evaluate our project here

12. Dialysis Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Dialysis: review and innovation”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

13. Innovation project for endoscopic ENT surgeries

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


An adjustable electrode surface RF-pencil

Problem: Electrode tip of RF-pencil is too large causing inaccuracy.

NEED Statement: Develop a RF-pencil which has a mechanism allowing surgeon to limit the electrode surface during the surgery without the help of the nurses and additional polymer material.

Beneficiary: Surgeon

Description:

  • The wheel can be turned upwards to move the movable part upwards and limit the electrode surface or downwards for prolonging the electrode length by moving the movable part downwards.
  • A small mechanical display will show the adjusted electrode length in millimetre.

Result:

  • Change limitation of electrode surface during coagulation process (interactive)
  • No need for manual adjustment
  • Time-saving

Please evaluate our project here

13. Innovation project Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “An adjustable electrode surface RF-pencil”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

14. Da Vinci Robotic Surgery

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Wireless headset at OR

Problem: Miscommunication between chief and assistant surgeon during the surgery.

” style=”float:right;”/>

NEED Statement: Introduce wireless headsets instead of common microphone and speaker system to mitigate surgeon-staff communication problem.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Assistant surgeon

Description:

  • It is an available technology inside a robotic surgical suit
  • It is a series of headset, for surgeon and the staff inside the operating room and a Bluetooth console that establish a wireless connection between them.

Result:

  • Clear communication between chief and assistant surgeon as chief surgeon is working on Da Vinci Robot away from the patient
  • No communication error means more efficient and error free operation

Please evaluate our project here

14. Da Vinci Robotic Surgery

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Wireless headset at OR”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

15. Interventional Cardiac Surgery

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Wearable laser pointer ring

Problem: Surgeon has no gear to point on the video monitor to discuss with his assistants.

” style=”float:right;”/>

NEED Statement: Introduce a wearable and easy to use laser pointer ring to point at the screen while performing surgery.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Assistant surgeon, Nurse

Description: Salient attributes of the laser pointer ring:

  • Ring: Adjustable with respect to size of the finger and wearable
  • Button: Having buttons on both sides will make it more convenient for the user. It can be pressed by finger on either side
  • Laser: Strong enough to point on the monitor. Class 1 laser ensures safety in all the environments of OR
  • Design: Its design will not affect multitasking of the surgeon, sterilizable and could be used for multiple purposes

Result:

  • Time-saving and easy to use device
  • No need to train OR staff prior to surgery
  • Enhances efficiency of overall performance of surgery

Please evaluate our project here

15. Interventional Cardiac Surgery Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Wearable laser pointer ring”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

16. Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography and Drainage (PTCD)

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Problem: Electronic devices connected to the patient gets unorganized and tangled when the patient needs to be transferred to another place.

NEED Statement: Introduce a universal medical device and cable holder to help solve the problem.

Beneficiary: Patient,Surgeon, Administrator, Nurse

Description: Salient attributes of the laser pointer ring:

  • An analysis is made to understand the different type of patient table mostly used in hospital.
  • MR compatible materials must be considered during the design process
  • The cable holder can then be designed accordingly to cater to all or most of these varieties

Result:

  • It is a reusable device that improves patient safety at minimal cost to the buyer, so shows a huge potential for commercialization
  • High economic feasibility as it is a reusable device
  • Reduce burden of all supporting staff and improve safety in OR

Please evaluate our project here

16. Percutaneous Transhepatic Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “A universal medical device”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

17. Endoscopic Diagnosis and Therapy, Ear Nose and Throat

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


An adaptive laryngoscope to fit in oral cavity

Problem: Surgeon needs to try different sizes of laryngoscopes on patient depending on the size of his oral cavity.

NEED Statement: Build an adaptive laryngoscope which can be used for any size of oral cavity.

Beneficiary: Patient,Surgeon

Description: Salient attributes of the laser pointer ring:

  • Two cylindrical tubes that can slide into each other with a locking mechanism
  • Adjust the length of the laryngoscope based on the size of the patient oral cavity
  • The diameter can be adjusted in the same way using a horizontal locking mechanism

Result:

  • Less patient discomfort
  • Saves time and money
  • Larger field of view
  • Easy to use

Please evaluate our project here

17. Endoscopic Diagnosis Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “An adaptive laryngoscope to fit in oral cavity”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

18. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) for prostrate cancer treatment

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


A robotic arm to aid to place probe

Problem: Difficult to position ultrasound probe at the rectum of patient due to lack of degree of freedom

NEED Statement: A robotic arm is introduced to place the probe into patient’s rectum by reducing discomfort for the patient and enabling better positioning of the probe with more degrees of freedom.

Beneficiary: Patient,Surgeon

Description: A robotic arm with the following attributes:

  • Arm with at least four nodes
  • Joystick for maneuvering the arm
  • A handler to move it manually by hand
  • Fixating points (locking) to achieve more stability in the required position

Result:

  • A robotic arm would increase degrees of freedom for maneuvering the probe increasing accuracy of the treatment
  • Provide a more comfortable intervention procedure for the doctor.
  • Time saving

Please evaluate our project here

18. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound (HIFU) Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “A robotic arm to aid to place probe”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

19. THORACIC IMAGE GUIDED SURGERY

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Flexi-rigid Thoracoscope

Problem:One person (assistant surgeon) required to hold the thoracoscope the whole- resulting time in less DOFs during surgery.

NEED Statement: To implement a rigid body thoracoscope which do not need to be held by another person during surgery and can give more DOFs compared to manual maneuver.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Assistant surgeon

Description:

  • A rigid body to carry optical fibres which will be connected to a camera at the end/tip with a fixed stand holding the thoracoscope
  • The camera is not connected to the rigid body but to the flexible tip of the thoracoscope
  • A mechanical connection is present at the tip, connected to the joystick which controls the movement of the camera present at the top of the Thoracoscope
  • The incision is made into the cavity and a clamp attached to the scope is stuck via glue, which would prevent it from moving during respiration

Result:

  • More DOF compared to manual maneuver enabling the images to be viewed from different angles
  • No need to hold the thoracoscope by a human during the whole surgery time
  • Connection to small screen (e.g. Cell phone) to send data in real time
  • Perception of depth can be achieved till some extent

Please evaluate our project here

19. THORACIC IMAGE GUIDED Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Flexi-rigid Thoracoscope”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

20. Interventional Procedures in Nuclear Medicines

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


A four-way adaptor for interventional Procedures in Nuclear Medicines

Problem:Difficult procedure to inject radioactive material into body for Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT).

NEED Statement: A four-way adaptor is designed to perform sandwich technique enabling doctors to not change syringe each time.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Patient

Description:

  • The process is performed in angiographic suite where the angiographic C-arm is used for imaging
  • Inject contrast agent to differentiate between normal liver volume and tumor
  • The sequential administration of contrast medium, followed by glucose solution and then yttrium-90 microspheres then again glucose and contrast medium
  • Take images under guidance of fluoroscopic C-arm

Result:

  • This adaptor contains a switch with which doctor can change flow direction and choose required syringe
  • Small and easy to fit for standard size of syringes
  • Reduces setup time for the nurse
  • No need to change syringe every time

Please evaluate our project here

20. Interventional Procedures Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “A four-way adaptor for interventional Procedures in Nuclear Medicines”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

21. INTERVENTIONAL CT (COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY)

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


A movable stretcher for all times

Problem: Uncomfortable position for patient to transfer to second table. Surgeon do not a good ergonomic point of view to perform surgery

NEED Statement: A movable stretcher to transfer patient without any complication.

Beneficiary: Patient, Surgeon

Description: A robotic arm with the following attributes:

  • The table has the ability to be resized in height. Legs of the table are fixed by bolt and nut and can be easily screwed on/off by the operator. The bolted joint also contains gasket which makes it safe when it will be fixed. A rotational small motor is used to change the legs’ position just with a button.
  • The table with wheels moves in rail. The mechanism of the CT table and the caster wheels is in a linear motion
  • When the table is in position the desired distance and the location of CT table can be fixed by means of breaks (manual operation) or an automatically using a simple program and arrow keys.

Result:

  • Safer, accurate process requiring a smaller number of people
  • Comfortable for both patient and surgeon
  • Less complicated process saving a huge amount of preparation time

Please evaluate our project here

21. INTERVENTIONAL CT Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “A movable stretcher for all times”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

22. Integrated endoscope with blood suction function

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


An integrated endoscope with blood suction function

Problem:Endoscope has to be taken out of the body and insert a different “rod” to suck up blood which makes the system quite time-consuming and creates a lot of hassle.

NEED Statement: Use a built-in integrated suction pipe within an endoscope to perform such surgery.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Assistant surgeon, Nurse

Description:

  • A two-valve system is used where valve 1 creates high pressure enabling water to be transported into the body at the surgical region and valve 2 uses low pressure enabling blood to be drained out of the surgical region
  • Suction is used to remove blood from the operating region.
  • A rotating fan is used to create a vacuum which sucks in air through suction nozzle at the end of a pipe.

Result:

  • Saves extra time and effort making the whole procedure easier for surgeon and assistant surgeons
  • An instant clearer field of view to carry on operation

Please evaluate our project here

22. Integrated endoscope Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “An integrated endoscope with blood suction function”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

23. roboC: A Robotic C-arm Positioning For Image Guided Surgery

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


A Robotic C-arm Positioning For Image Guided Surgery

Problem:Position of C arm is time consuming

A Robotic C-arm Positioning For Image Guided Surgery

NEED Statement: Find X ray image to find the best viewing angle automatically

Beneficiary: Surgeon

Description:

  • All joints of the C-arm are equipped with motors and encoders
  • Move the C-arm based on a precise angle entered by surgeon
  • Position the C-arm to a point located in the pre-operative CT image after registering it with the intra-operative Fluoroscopic image

Result: This solution allows the surgeon to positon the C-arm precisely and faster while reducing the radiation dose. The design is structurally sound and can be built on top of a normal CT. This will result in lower Manufacturing cost, making it commercial viability

Please evaluate our project here

24. Endo-Spy: RFID-Based Endoleak Monitor

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


ENDO-SPY: An RFID based Endoleak Monitor

Problem:Patients who undergo Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) has 20-50% of post-surgery endoleaks. It is also required to go through complicated post-surgery check-ups to monitor any complication.

NEED Statement: A specific type of stent that can notify the doctors if it gets misplaced.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Patient

Description:

  • Stent with RFID tag and pressure sensor is installed
  • Sensor detects any increase in blood flow in the Aneurysm sac
  • RFID tag sends a notification to the server/app
  • App/server sends a notification to the doctor

Result: Endoleak detection process becomes easier and stent displacement can be detected immediately. Doctors get data about current status of stent remotely.

Please evaluate our project here

24. Endo-Spy Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “ENDO-SPY An RFID based Endoleak Monitor”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

25. Augmented Reality Trainer for Laparoscopic Surgery

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Augmented Reality Trainer for Laparoscopic Surgery

Problem:No haptic feedback to train for laparoscopic surgery

NEED Statement: To provide a middle ground called as the TrainAR Simulator which is between basic laparoscopic torso simulator and modern VR trainer.

Beneficiary: Surgeons working with AR or VR

Description:

  • Provide a laparoscopic torso containing dummy organs such as liver or internal bladder.
  • Model the dummy organs as closely to their respective counterparts as possible using unique markers to distinguish between the organs.
  • A laporoscopic video is displayed and the dummy elements are shown with actual colors of the organs.

Result: The TrainAR creates realistic scenarios for surgeons and students to practice. Helps extensively to prepare for performing laparoscopic surgery.

Please evaluate our project here

25. Augmented Reality Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Augmented Reality Trainer for Laparoscopic Surgery”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

26. Scanner Tray

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Scanner Tray

Problem:It is a huge hassle to document all instruments and items used during a surgery.

A typical Scanner Tray

NEED Statement: A RFID-based tray to keep track of all instruments being used and sterilized before re-using.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Scrub nurse

Description:

  • A tray with embedded sensors ( load cells and RFID)
  • All equipments are sterilized and kept in the tray before surgery
  • Tray is scanned at the beginning of the operation
  • Separate tray dedicated solely to the purpose of collecting the used equipments during the surgery

Result: Saves time to distinguish sterilized instruments during a surgery. Provides higher accuracy to keep track of equipments saving time. Less human effort required making the system more convenient to crosscheck data.

Please evaluate our project here

26. Scanner Tray Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Scanner Tray”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

27. Bronchoscopy

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Automatically registering CT scan data in the Bronchoscopy system

Problem:Difficult to examine major air passage of lungs using a bronchoscope.

Automatically registering CT scan data in the Bronchoscopy system

NEED Statement: An automated path planning method to enable virtual bronchoscopy on an image-guided bronchoscopy.

Beneficiary: Patient, Surgeon and assistant

Description:

  • A dynamic path for bronchoscopy is generated to navigate inside the lung
  • The system navigates the camera without probes to reach the region of interest using pre-recorder CT scan data
  • The system informs the surgeon of a presence of a lesion with a noise feedback
  • After approval of the doctor for the lesion found, the system automatically removes the camera from the channel and probe is inserted automatically in the channel for further action (like biopsy)
  • Analysing the breathing pattern of the patient the position of the bronchoscopic channel is adjusted to guide the probe for reaching a particular lesion accurately

Result: Lesser number of biopsy sample to be collected and patient can go home on the same day. Automated/supported OR without manual intervention makes operation more convenient. Automated registration software helps in path planning.

Please evaluate our project here

27. Bronchoscopy Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Automatically registering CT scan data in the Bronchoscopy system”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

28. An autonomous robot- assisted camera guidance system for laparoscopy

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


LapGuide™: An autonomous robot-assisted camera guidance system for laparoscopy

Problem:Poor laparoscopic positioning due to miscommunication between surgeon and assistant is an unnecessary stress factor and potential source of errors.

NEED Statement: Introduce a robotic assistant which uses a camera guidance system to track down and perform autonomous laparoscope guidance.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Assistant surgeon

Description: LapGuide™ comprises of special features:

  • Instrument tracking – Real time color tracking using green markers at the end of the instruments
  • Foot pedal control – Locking the position of the laparoscope as well as switching the focus
  • Small size – Portable, flexible, compact and easy to set up
  • Intuitive – No required training
  • Manual control – Can manage repositioning by hand

Result: Enables better working condition with automatic camera alignment. Assistants have better communication with surgeon. Less assistants required per surgery.

Please evaluate our project here

28. An autonomous Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “LapGuide™: An autonomous robot-assisted camera guidance system for laparoscopy”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

29. SurgeonAssist

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


SurgeonAssist: A helper to focus more on surgery

Problem:The current system forces a surgeon to perform numerous manual movement of the patient to get better imaging. The surgeon also needs to make frequent pauses to wait for the nurse’s assistance.

NEED Statement: An integrated tool with voice and augmented reality to provide the capability of having control through voice and visualize body path through augmented reality..

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Assistant Surgeon

Description:

  • Voice recognition commands (managing bed/ make phone call to Superior surgeon).
  • Projecting 3D models and 2D slices to patient body.
  • Sending images to make an agreement with superior surgeon.
  • Acting as a translator between patient and surgeon.

Result:

  • Send Screenshots to the senior doctor (no hassle of running out of OR).
  • Take better images by initializing the CT scanner movement.
  • Pull patient’s medical records from database.
  • Helps to make projections over the patient for the estimation.
  • Helps in moving bed at optimal position.
  • Document the procedure for administrative records reducing the time spent on documentation.

Please evaluate our project here

29. SurgeonAssist Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “SurgeonAssist: A helper to focus more on surgery”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

30. Orthobot: A next Generation of Orthopedic Surgery

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


Orthobot: A next Generation of Orthopedic Surgery

Problem:Crowded OR and unorganized tool table leads to increase in complication to perform surgery and contamination danger.

A typical Scanner Tray

NEED Statement: To organize OR in an orderly manner to reduce number of staffs required and avoid contamination risk.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, patient, circulating nurse

Description:

  • A new machine, Orthobot, which can hand necessary tools automatically.
  • It can supply sterile material needed for the surgery (e.g bandage, bone cement, etc)
  • The machine can be controlled simple buttons with a smooth surface so that they can be cleaned easily.
  • Voice control can be added as an extra option.

Result:

  • Access to required instrument faster
  • Less operation time required
  • No mess on the instrument table
  • Risk of mixing sterilized and non-sterilized instrument is reduced
  • Long term investment

Please evaluate our project here

30. Orthobot Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “Orthobot: A next Generation of Orthopedic Surgery”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)

31. PROFIT: Orthopaedic knee replacement

Unmet Clinical Need Evaluation


PROFIT: Orthopaedic Knee Replacement

Problem:Typical orthopaedic knee replacement is an off-the-shelf-knee implant which requires removal of bone and tissue with the need of re-intervention. This operation compromises natural motion and causes residual pain and limitations.

PROFIT: Orthopaedic Knee Replacement

NEED Statement: Enables patient-specific knee implant designed based on personal anatomy of patient.

Beneficiary: Surgeon, Patient

Description:

  • Utilize CT scan data
  • Use proprietary software
  • Individualized implant design for each patient
  • Use special cutting guides for incision
  • Perform surgery

Result:

  • Offers “Perfect fit” instead “Close fit”.
  • Limited trauma
  • Alleviated discomfort with recovery of natural motion
  • Increased rate of successful surgeries

Please evaluate our project here

31. PROFIT Survey

Project Evaluation

Project Evaluation


Evaluation of project “PROFIT: Orthopaedic Knee Replacement”

Clarity:

1. Does the Idea contain a clear need statement?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

2. Does the Idea state a definite objective to handle the problem?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

3. Is it clearly identified who is benefiting from this Idea (e.g patient/surgeon/nurse/medical staff)?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

4. Does it precisely show the result of the Idea?

1 (Unclear)
2
3
4
5 (Very clear)

Sustainability:

1. How do you rate the need statement of this Idea?

1 (Inefficient)
2
3
4
5 (Very efficient)

2. How do you rate the strategic planning of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

3. How do you rate the idea in terms of social and environment design?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Well satisfied)

4. Does the Idea satisfy customer’s (patient/ surgeon/ medical staff) need?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

Makerlab and IGS Model Skill compatibility:

1. From Makerlab perspective, how feasible is the project Idea to be developed in the lab using its own resources e.g staff, student, equipment?

1 (Not feasible)
2
3
4
5 (Very much feasible)

2. Do we need extra resources (e.g extra hardware/funding/staff from other discipline) to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more stuffs)
2
3
4
5 (No need. Easily do-able)

3. Apart from students learning empathy, soft skills and innovation thinking working through this Idea, is there any other skill required for the students to learn to implement this Idea?

1 (Need a lot more skills)
2
3
4
5 (Acquired skills are enough)

4. How much does the Idea promote patient-oriented healthcare system through its implementation?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very much)

Commercialization:

1. Is there a market to commercialize this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very good opportunity to commercialize)

2. To what scale do you think the customer (patient/surgeon/medical staff) can be benefited from this Idea?

1 (Not benefited at all)
2
3
4
5 (Highly benefited)

3. How do you rate the commercialization strategy of this Idea?

1 (Not good)
2
3
4
5 (Very good)

4. How do you rate value creation for this Idea?

1 (Not attractive at all)
2
3
4
5 (Very attractive )

Legislation:

1. Is the Idea an in vivo or ex vivo development?

1 (In vivo)
2
3
4
5 (Ex vivo)

2. Do we need patient’s consent to implement this idea?

1 (Yes)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

3. From an ethical point of view, how does implementation of the Idea raise questions against moral principle?

1 (Raises ethical questions)
2
3
4
5 (Perfectly under control )

4. Do we need to go through barriers of regulations to implement this Idea?

1 (A lot)
2
3
4
5 (No. Perfectly under control )

Outcome:

1. Does the Idea identify unmet clinical need for medical staff?

1 (Not identified)
2
3
4
5 (Yes. Obtains new knowledge)

2. How do the administration benefit from this Idea (in terms of patient stay duration, admission and release of patient cycle)?

1 (Not benefited)
2
3
4
5 (Benefits a lot)

3. Does the Idea boost up students to replicate more such project endeavours in standard education system?

1 (Not something interesting)
2
3
4
5 (Very interesting for fellow students)

4. Can industry get clinical insight implementing this Idea?

1 (Not at all)
2
3
4
5 (Yes a lot)