Short Projects 1998

 

The following are the short project statements and team compositions for the short project exercises in BME 272, Fall 1998:

1.     A.  Title:  Reverse-engineering of an 386 based OR monitoring system.

        B.  Problem statement:   There is an 386 based operating room monitoring system in the design lab.  The last time that this system was upgraded was about 4-5 years ago, but this system was "state of the art" at the time.  The system was designed by Dr. King with the assistance of Nimesh Patel, it was last used rougly 4 years ago.  The system was the last of a series of monitoring/record-keeping systems developed at Vanderbilt under the guidance of Dr. Bradley Smith, past chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Vanderbilt.  Your group is to survey the state of the art today, and recommend an updated monitoring system.

        C.  Beginning references:  There are several companies that sell commercial systems, survey them via the web.  Search also under STA (The society for technology in Anesthesia), ASA (American Society of Anesthesia),  AMIA, SCIA, Computing in Anesthesia and Intensive Care, ...  See King, P.H., Smith, B. E. "Computerized Monitoring at Vanderbilt University: Status and Future Directions". International Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp 117-120, 1991.   and  King, P., Smith, B., "Automated Record-Keeping Systems Used In Anesthesiology", Hospimedica, Vol. X, No. 3, April 1992, pp 34-39 (See King for copy.)

        D.  Suggested people sources:   Dr. King.  Dr. Bradley E Smith at 61984 (please do not consult other VU Anesthsia faculty.)

        E.  Minimal results:   Documentation of  the lab system.  Documentation of the "state of the art" in monitoring/record keeping systems.  Recommendation for upgrading/moderization of the lab system.  Forecast of the future of this effort.

        F.  Reporting: see end of document.

Team 1 Team 2
Neil Sapra, Lisa Pinto, Kelly Braun*, Tera George, Brian Tice Presentation here
Hayden Glenn*, Jessica Stansbury, Valerie Futral, Rebecca Schmid,, Gregory Gates ...  Presentation: Here


2.     A.  Title:  Voice input and control systems.

        B.  Problem statement:  The technology of voice recognition has a fairly long history, do a quick survey of this history.  Document the state of the art.  Document techniques and applications for the technology in addition to the use of the software for dictation  (such as process control, and Discovery Cannel - control of a trolling motor).  Put together a design analysis of same. Conclude with a recommendation regarding use of  this technology for wheelchair control for the specific case of Mr Warpinki's daughter.   Be sure to do a safety analysis on this system.

        C.  Suggested references: As usual, the web.  Next:  PC Magazine - runs at least one overview per year.   Browse through the magazines in the design lab, look at the "Closing the Gap" literature. 

        D.  Suggested people resources:   Mr Warpinski.  Prof. Joel Barnett (M.E.)  Dr. King.

        E.  Minimal Results:  Survey of the state of the art, suggested design for Mr Warpinski's daughter Meggin, detailed safety analysis & overview...

        F.  Reporting - see end of document.

Team 1 Team 2
David Walden*,  Melisa Moore, Enayat Qayumi, David Prill, Cherry Abenojar, Dereck Johnson   Presentation Here Megan McInerney, Pedro Pedroso, Pete Tandy, Shannon Harrison*,
Beth Sullivan Presentation Here


3.     A.  Title: ABET 2000 documentation of BME.

        B.  Problem statement:   Engineering curricula in the United States will be judged under a new procedure titled ABET 2000.  This procedure is mandatory after the year 2000, some schools have already volunteered to "go first" and have had their departments accredited under this process.  Your task is to understand the process, document it, and apply it from your, the student's viewpoint., to our BME curriculum at Vanderbilt.  Be sure to document your system/procedure.  Be sure to address such issues as confidentiality/privacy from the student viewpoint.  I am most interested in your viewpoint, not Rose-Hullman's, for example..

        C.  Suggested references:   The web will give you more than enough information.  Start with http://www.abet.org/

        D.  People resources:   Dr. King.  Perhaps Dr. Shiavi.  Please do not impose on any other faculty (this is an ongoing effort for several of us, not a current concern for many, ...)  If he has time, Robert Palmer, BME grad student.  If she has time, Nelum Romanos, a CS Junior.

        E.  Minimal Results:  An overview of the process.  A suggested template/process for BME at VU.  A unique viewpoint.

        F.  Reporting:  see below.

Team 1 Team 2
Sandhya Mani, Brian Lenahan*, Brent Hefty, Justin Heffner, Teri Penn Presentation Here Kathleen Kiss*, Wade May, Mike Hixson, Melanie Kotys, Josh Fox    Presentation Here


4.       A.  Titledesignsafe risk assessment software critique

          B.  Problem Statement:   Students will become familiar with the designsafe risk assessment software. The baseline dictionaries in designsafe are not specific to the biomedical engineering field. Students will develop a version of designsafe customized for the biomedical engineering field. Students will customize the designsafe dictionaries including lists of users, tasks, hazard categories, and hazards using the customization features in the program. For example, doctor, nurse, technician might be more appropriate than operator and other listed users. The dictionary lists should be representative of many, but not necessarily all, users/tasks/hazards applicable to the biomedical community. The dictionaries should optimize ease of use rather than attempt to be exhaustive or comprehensive.

        C.  Suggested references:   Begin with your class notes, visit next http://www.designsafe.com   The two team leaders will need to install designsafe on a given machine in the BME lab...

        D.  Sources:  Dr. King.   Bruce Main through e-mail.

        E.  Minimal Results:   Students will use the customized version of designsafe to conduct at least three sample analyses of biomedical devices or processes. Students shall hand in both a printed analysis and a file on disk (or email) for each analysis. Survey the field for products similar to designsafe. Recommend the use/modification of designsafe for the study of medical accidents..  A suggested process is a resection of a segment of bowel (operation), or the discussion/process of cardiac catheterization/accident discussed by Dr. King.  A suggested device is the artificial knee.  Your choice on item/study three.  Students will also prepare a brief critique of the designsafe software program. The critique should include primary features which need improvements and primary features judged to be the most advantageous.

        F.  Reporting - see below.

Team 1 Team 2
   Edward Caron*, Jamey Burrow, Eric Benson,    Bradley Pollock
Bryce Davis*, Glen Henbest, Anjul Maheshwari, Matt Oster,  Martin Gilmore
Presentation Here


5.     A.  Title:  Competency testing using a Human Patient Simulator.

        B. Problem Statement:  We need to develop a measurement system that will test (measure) Anesthesia physician competancy in the task of anesthetizing/maintaining a patient during surgery.   A safe method would involve NOT using humans or animals for these tests, and would involve the use of testing methodology and related documenation and measurement.  A proposed method would be to use a device such as the Human Patient Simulator used here at Vanderbilt.

        C:  Suggested References:  King, P. H., Blanks, S., Rummel, D., Patterson, D., "Simulator Training in Anesthesiology: An Answer?", Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology, July/August 1996 pgs. 341-345.  http://anesthesiology.mc.vanderbilt.edu/HPS/thejas.html   The web...

        D:  Suggested sources:  Dr. King.   Dr. Donald Pierce, Anesthesiology.

        E.  Minimal Results:    A survey of testing methodology.  A survey of devices for testing.   A discussion  of the two.  A survey of "competency" and a discussion of the implications thereof.  A proposed methodology for testing.   Results if feasible....

        F: reporting - see below.

Team 1 Team 2
Angela Bookwalter*,  Jennifer Britton,  Michelle Kandcer,   Blake Martin,  Micah Schmidt, Greg Tevis,  Pankaj Desai   Presentation: Here Brian Decker,* Samira Madhany, Sara Dawson, Clayton Browne, Alex Hughes,      Kimberly Barton  Presentation: Here

The person who has the * after his/her name is judged the team leader unless I hear otherwise...

Reporting: 

1.  Each group will present in class their results.  The method of presentation is optional.  The timing is ~ 6 minutes per group, please strive for 5 minute presentations with 1 minute q&a..  Presentation date:   Nov 5.    Oral presentation ~20%

2.  Paper covering minimal results, along with necessary documenation, 80%.   No more than 20 pages.  No less than is necessary, likely 5 or so pages.   Appendixes optional.  Suggested format - formal report style.   Paper is due on or before exam time on November 10.  This will allow you to incorporate feedback from your presentation.

This exercise is meant to be interesting and mind-expanding.  Please enjoy yourselves!