Embedded Files
Background Research
Medical personnel are exposed to variety of infectious diseases during their duties. One of the primary sources of getting these diseases is through direct contact which can occur when injecting vaccines into patients since vaccination requires holding the patient’s body when injecting. One of the most recent diseases that have spread is Ebola, which sometimes does require direct contact to handle patients. The medical personnel do wear protective clothing, but still are at a risk, especially when injecting. A study done in 2004 in Turkey had concluded that needle exposure and vaccinations were a risk to the medical personnel and needed to improve their procedures. Every hospital handbook contains a statement in which nurses and health personnel are aware that they are at risk for occupational exposure to diseases and needle stick injuries from vaccinations or applying vaccines.
Sources:
"Safety and Health Topics | Healthcare - Infectious Diseases." Safety and Health Topics | Healthcare - Infectious Diseases. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthcarefacilities/infectious_diseases.html>.
"Will Robotic Arms Administer the Flu Shot?" Bangaloremirror. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/others/Will-robotic-arms-administer-the-flu-shot/articleshow/28198126.cms>.
"Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of Medicine, n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12858655>.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 07 May 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/safety.html>.
Macmahon, Kathleen L. "Protecting Poultry Workers from Exposure to Avian Influenza Viruses." Public Health Reports (1974-) 123.3, Veterinary Public Health (2008): 1-322. Web. 16 Dec. 2014.
"Infectious Diseases." N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <https%3A%2F%2Fwww.osha.gov%2FSLTC%2Fhealthcarefacilities%2Finfectious_diseases.html>.
"Occupational Exposure to Hepatitis Infection among Turkish Nurses." N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2014. <http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpubmed%2F14979586>.
My Question and Hypothesis
Question:
In the world, many medical personnel and volunteers are being exposed to diseases (mostly contagious) while injecting vaccines to the diseased because of the direct contact. This results in a superior problem as now there are more who are diseased. In order to stop this problem, I plan to design and build a robotic arm that is operated by a wireless controller which has no human direct interaction of the medical volunteers. My resulting question is: Can an automated injection device, as I create, be efficient to prevent exposure of medical personnel to infectious diseases, minimizing the risks of catching the diseases?
I built a previous machine last year based on pneumatics, and this year I built this same concept using an electric mechanism and a motor.
Therefore my question for this 2015-2016 year is:
If I use an electric mechanism utilizing a motor, will my machine be able to carry out the basic injecting functions without any interaction with the target or the machine itself?
Hypothesis:
If I rebuild my machine using electrical mechanisms instead of pneumatics, my machine will have a better efficiency than my machine using pneumatics.
-Engineering Goals:
Be able to minimize risks effects and increase efficiency of machine itself.
-- Expected outcomes:
1. The machine's efficiency will increase as now it will be based on a simple motor mechanism rather than pneumatics.
2. The new mechanism will allow for smoother functions needed for when vaccinating.
Experimental Procedure
1. Designing and building
2. Operational procedures
Designing and building
Scope
Brainstorm/conceptualize
Draft/design
Analyze
Optimize
Build
Test
Review Results and address issues
Present
Operational Procedures
Unit is energized using USB and an External Power source.
The program Defines pins for inputs and outputs to set up the boards for their intended use.
The code begins its loop waiting for a button to be pressed.
The unit has 2 options 1st button drives the unit out 4096 steps (1.8 deg per step) for a total motion of roughly 1.7 inches. The 2nd button also drives the unit the same number of steps, but in the opposite direction.
The loop returns after either of these functions finishes to the beginning of the loop awaiting the next button to be pressed
The methods and procedures that I intend to use are divided into two parts:
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
As this project was researched and built at home, a basic testing procedure of the machine was applied. The data collection was done through the following:
The machine’s overall function in operational procedures was divided into 4 parts:
1. Pressing the “o” button and the motor turning in the positive direction
2. The arm extending on the rails 1.7 inches
3. Pressing the “I” button and the motor turning in the opposite direction
4. The arm retracing 1.7 inches
Each of the 4 parts accounted for 25 percent of total efficiency of a 100 percent of the machine. (Efficiency being defined as no breakdowns, fixtures, or interruptions in the overall function of the machine.)
If the machine completed its function smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions, the “efficiency” would be a 100 percent
If the machine had 1 fixture in the machine, efficiency would decrease to 75 percent
Deduction of efficiency continues as fixtures increase during testing of the machine.
Observation and Data
DATA
DEVICE EFFICIENCY (in percentage) (WORKS PROPERLY, NO INTERACTION, NO FIXATION OF DEVICE, etc)
Trial 1
Notes:
Run 1: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 2: The arm did not retract back when the motor began running in opposite direction, thus 25 percent of total “efficiency” was subtracted.
Run 3: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 4: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 5: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Trial 2
Notes:
Run 1: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 2: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 3: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 4: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 5: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Trial 3
Notes:
Run 1: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 2: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 3: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 4: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Run 5: Function went smoothly without any fixtures or interruptions
Conclusion
My conclusion was that my hypothesis was correct and my goals were achieved; the overall efficiency tested in the multiple stimulation was good and was higher than the 95% efficiency of the original machine powered by pneumatics. The function was smoother than the original machine's function and the size of the machine was minimized, making it more compatible, achieving my goals. Further improvements would be to add the guides for the patient as well as a sterilization pit which would be sterilized using Ultraviolet lights and alcoholic sprays. I would also work on the rails and bearing of the machine to make it even smoother that allows for no fixtures or problems due to friction or imbalances. If there were further research in research facilities, I would add a real syringe and apply improvements in accordance such as the guides and built in sterilization. I would also try to make the machine wireless with a long enough range from the controller to the machine to enable no interaction or proximity between patient and health personnel.
Overlook of the machine
arduino controller with controller hooked up to connect to motor
Acme thread and rod that the motor rotates for the actual device to move and function.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse