Week 3 Report

So far we have identified and investigated a need for a faster way for nurses to determine urinary output levels for hospital inpatients to save a significant amount of the nurses time.

Currently, nurses empty the contents of the urine collection bags into beakers and take measurements this way. This is a process that is done on almost every patient in the ICU once every two hours. It is estimated that a nurse spends between 30 minutes to an hour everyday measuring and recording fluid output.

On Friday (9/14), at 4pm our team is meeting with a trauma surgeon, Dr. John Mazuski, and a few members of the nursing staff, most notably Carrie Sona, the clinical nurse specialist at the surgical ICU. Over the course of the meeting we intend to get a feel for “what they say, what they want, what they’ll pay for, and what they actually do.” Throughout the conversation, we’ll be keeping a mental note of not only the patient-clinician relationship, but also the interest of the overall hospital, insurance companies, and commercial entities with respect to the scope of the problem. We will confirm with Carrie Sona on a client-student partnership to find solutions that satisfy the aforementioned parties involved in this problem. Additional updates will be provided after the meeting.

Week 4 Report

This week we looked into existing solutions for determining the urinary output of ICU patients. Additionally, Carrie sent us one that appealed to her, an automated device consisting of a bag that attaches to the foley cath and a tablet that determines the outputs and displays them on the screen. Additionally, the urine output can be seen remotely. While this is a good solution, it is very expensive. The addition of a tablet computer seems unnecessary considering there are already so many capable computers in a patient's room.

A different company is using creating a new catheter system that relies on 50mL increment being recorded and only allowing flow from the bladder when 50mL has been exceeded. This is a pretty unique solution but I think the 50mL increment recording will not be very useful when considering the severity of kidney injury.

We additionally looked into general purpose liquid flow meter systems. Rotameters are the most common fluid flow meter with low cost and simplicity. Paddlewheels are similar. Both suffer from reusability across catheter systems. Studying these systems has made me realize than a permanent inline meter within the catheter may be possible rather than some type of parallel flow monitor.

We learned from this week that we are in a very crowded field and will have pretty fierce competition from medical suppliers. Should we come up with a low cost solution, it will have to be pretty remarkable to make a impression on the current market.

https://www.adaptecmed.com/icu-products

https://www.medline.com/pages/clinical-expertise/infection-prevention/accurynfrommedline/

Week 5 Update (09/28/2018)

Group 13

This week we investigated possible solutions to our problem. One solution that we are interested in pursuing is the use of properties of light to determine how much fluid has passed a certain point. Using technology similar to pulse oximetry we should be able to track in real time how much fluid has passed through the catheter. Additionally, this will allow us to easily track the rate of fluid movement and report these values through a computer.

We pulled code from a previous comp sci course that would allow us to determine absorbance from a pulse oximetry reading and threshold the signal. The code was originally used to determine when a heart beat was pushing blood through a vessel, however, urine through a catheter tube would easily be analogous. Should this particular solution space prove viable, the next step would to be design how continuous absorbance detection of fluid can be translated into strictly volumetric flow.

We also did some extensive research into the application of urinary output detection on patients affected by acute kidney injury. Patients with AKI tend to need closer monitoring for urinary output in the ICU, typically because medications that serve the disease have drastic effects on their overall urinary output. But even then, since urinary output in the intensive care unit serves as a periodic check-up on the patient, rather than a rigorous examination of the patient’s fluid output, there is no need for the measurement device to be precision-focused. Rather, as the main problem is the nurse’s busy schedule, the device should be stand-alone and reliable, and (preferably) produce electronic output that is convenient to read.

Week 6

This week we spent a fair amount of time working on the preliminary report. The majority of this work was in the arena of patent searches and existing solutions. While we had started accumulating a list, this assignment required a more in depth understanding of these solutions. We also were slacking in uploading our information from the google drive into the lab archive notebook. We will try to do better in the future.

Throughout this weekend we will be working diligently with Kevin Li to prepare a presentation that summarizes our preliminary steps for our projects. The majority of the work for next week will involve formatting and displaying our already acquired information in new and informative ways.

Week 7 Report (10/12/2018)

This week we prepared for the preliminary presentation and updated our scheduling timeline for the next few weeks. The preliminary presentation was largely based off on the preliminary report, and focused on the need statement, project scope, design specifications, and existing solutions.

The upcoming deadlines after this week include making sure that the website is operational with team content, and keeping up to date with weekly reports. The current model of the catheter volume container will be tested at home, since we Carrie was able to provide us with a sample from the hospital.

We will also continue bouncing these ideas off Carrie and her staff, including possible patients, to design the most optimal product. We will meet after fall break to continue our discussion of how we can leverage the existing solutions to create a design that would be competitive in the current market.

Week 8

This week we began preliminary testing on the existing solution from Barnes-Jewish Hospital. We have also begun designing our website for the deadline early next week.

The website will contain our group information, in addition to contact information, project information, and updates on our work throughout the year. We plan to make this website available by Monday, October 22.

Week 9

This week, our group set up a working version of our website, and posted it to be made public. Additionally, we have continued doing patent searches to gain a better understanding of the different ways we can best approach the urine output measurement problem. We will be thinking how to integrate the most appealing ideas into a single, viable prototype later on.

The link to our website is below:

https://sites.google.com/view/urometer

Week 10

This week, we continued to test our model urine container and updated our website with relevant information. In terms of deadline progressions, we have looked into the progress report and presentation. It’s been decided that Sean Mahoney will be presenting for our group. We also looked more into the FDA approval process and specific pathways that may pertain for our eventual product.

Group 13

Benjamin Liu

Kevin Li

Sean Mahoney

Week 11 Report

This week, we researched more into ways to develop a solution. We met with a mechanical engineering student with experience in fluid mechanics to brainstorm ways to measure fluid output in a cheap and reusable manner. To this end, we also began considering the material and size options available to us in order to meet the cost design specification.

Week 12

This week we spent the majority of time discussing what direction we want to take for a solution and started updating our gantt chart. Additionally, we discussed how we want to implement a solution. Ideally we would want to 3D print an add on to the current foley catheter, but as we identify our solution in its entirety this might not be possible.

Additionally, this week we spent some time analyzing where our product would go on a efficacy vs cost graph, to find the “gap”. We found that there are a lot of highly effective products and a lot of cheap products, but few are reusable and cheap. Our specifications allow for a decent error in volume reading, many solutions are overly accurate which cause them to be more expensive.

Week 14 Report

Group 13 - 11/30/2018

This week, our group collected all of our sources and potential solutions and organized it into the format of the progress report. As a result, we managed to narrow down our field of alternative solutions, and analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each one. Additionally, we did some research on the potential costs of our chosen solution, and assessed whether or not this would be feasible given the scope of our project.

Group 13 - Week 16 Report

Sean Mahoney, Ben Liu, Kevin Li

This week our group discussed the direction we will take with our prototype. Specifically, we are

trying to tackle the issue of small intricate features combined with a 3D printer that would not be precise

at the scale we need. One thing we have considered, per your suggestion, is to use the 3D printer in the

engineering building, but this comes at a cost. Another idea we were considering is using really small

tubing and then 3D printing a housing unit for that tubing. This would allow us to 3D print the device

from Widder’s 3D printers which would save on cost but not change the design significantly. Instead of a

3D printed canal, it would just be plastic tubing in the exact same shape.

Additionally, we decided that we will likely be purchasing a cheap raspberry pi zero or arduino

nano because they are very cheap and the are much smaller than the arduino we currently have available.

By using a device that is much smaller, it will be much easier for us to demonstrate that the computer

portion of the device could fit our design specifications, especially for sturdiness and portability.

Week 17 Report

Group 13 - 1/25/19

This week we ordered the materials we need to begin circuit design and preliminary testing. Furthermore, we discussed design and began assessing what type of resolution of 3D printing is needed for our two components: the housing unit and the actual siphon device. Finally, we are continuing research on how to solve our first potential issue at hand, if the amount of urine passes overloads the siphon device.

Week 18 Report - Group 13

Sean Mahoney, Ben Liu, Kevin Li

As we wait on our a few of our materials to be delivered, we have continued to do work

on our 3D model for 3D printing and software for the detection component. We will be

attempting to use tubing purchased online instead of seeking expensive 3D printing to work as

our prototype. The tubing and the arduino we have purchased are still being shipped so we will

have more to do upon their arrival. We intend to create two 3D models, our prototype model

with the tubing and the fully formed 3D model where the “tubing” is constructed in the 3D

printing.

One challenge that we will need to pay a lot of attention to going forward is creating a

design that does not move much within the tubing and is watertight. Ideally the 3D printed piece

would not need any glue or sealant to form the seal. I am considering adding a space for a

rubber gasket to ensure proper sealing but if we can create a design without this part that would

be ideal.

Week 19

Group 13: Kevin Li, Ben Liu, Sean Mahoney

Feb 08, 2019

This week, we continued to develop a 3D model for the cup design. Additionally, we were able

to gather material (such as wires, resistors) from Professor Widder’s Lab to start working on the

Arduino set-up. We plan to complete these initial phases of these designs by next week so we

can continue to improve on and refine our existing models.

Week 20

Group 13 - Sean Mahoney, Kevin Li, Ben Liu

This week we ended up having to make large changes to our CAD model because the

volume of liquid it would have contained was too little. As we start printing our piece we

anticipate we’ll have to make more adjustments to change the volume held and the speed of

liquid removal. We have collected the supplies we need for the circuit element and now just

need to ensure that it could accurately detect our flow. The circuit itself isn’t very complicated.

The tubing that was ordered turned out larger than we expected compared to the model so we

are looking into ordering smaller tubing or identifying an alternative solution. We intend on

consulting with Widder next week on the feasibility of our design on her printers and will make

the adjustments we need to get moving.

Week 21 Update

Group 13 - Sean Mahoney, Ben Liu, Kevin Li

As we had anticipated, we are encountering problems with the scale of our design.

Because the design itself is so small and the tubing is fairly intricate we are encountering

problems with not only accuracy of 3D printing but also with fluid dynamics. The amount of fluid

is so small that it might cause cohesion and adhesion to overrule the force of gravity that would

create the siphon. A potential remedy to these problems is to simply create a larger device.

While this is a fairly large deviation from the plan, it could still satisfy all of our requirements so

long as we make the wider tubing as part of our add-on device.

We will be getting assistance with 3D printing from professor Widder tomorrow and will

have more updates on the design direction in the coming days. The design of the 3D printed

piece is well established, it is just a matter of the size that will allow the fluid to work as

intended.

Week 22 Report

Group 13 - Sean Mahoney, Ben Liu, Kevin Li

This week the majority of our work was on the verification and validation report. We ran

testing on our proof of concept model and found that our larger 3D printed models work

excellently but the smaller models are very inconsistent due to cohesion and adhesion

preventing the establishment of a proper siphon. To be more specific, the siphon consistently

works the first time the device is filled, but many times a small amount of water adheres to the

tubing which prevents the flow to start. We are looking into ways to prevent this adhesion and

we are also entertaining the idea of using a larger model with connective tubing if it turns out

that we can not scale our design down.

Additionally, we are looking into editing our future 3D printed models for a more secure

seal. We are testing using a flair edge to tension seal the device to the tubing which would

prevent leaks. The angle of the flair and the extra diameter will need to be tested with the tubing

we are using to find the right balance of sealing the tube but not causing damage to the device

or the tube.

Group 13: Kevin Li, Ben Liu, Sean Mahoney

Week 23

Mar 08, 2019

This week, we continued our development of the mechanical siphon mechanism in the tubing given to us by our client. We have also calibrated our light diffraction sensor (using photoresistor) for the arduino system, but we plan to slightly modify the sensitivity after finalizing the siphon mechanism. After further thought and experimentation on the siphon mechanism, we have also decided that it would be easier to 3D print just the base of the cup, rather than the base and the wall, since the tubing will conveniently act as a tight wall such that liquid can only go through the siphon anyways. We plan to work on this new design over Spring Break, and continue testing the volume, speed, and accuracy of the system.

Group 13: Kevin Li, Ben Liu, Sean Mahoney

Week 25

Mar 22, 2019

This week, we continued to finalize our mechanical tubing siphon model. We 3-D printed 3 more models for testing purposes, and modified the cup so that the tubing forms the outside wall of the cup. We also modified the arduino sensor system to better fit the changed mechanical model. We also bought more tubing of various sizes to determine best fit for the volume requirements. This upcoming week, we plan to finalize testing the mechanical model, and work on calibrating the LED sensor for the arduino system.

Group 13: Kevin Li, Ben Liu, Sean Mahoney

Week 26

March 29, 2019

This week, we focused on efforts to scale down our device to a more appropriate size. This included ordering smaller sized LED sensor components to make a more compact sensor as well as continuing to modify the mechanical model so that it retains consistent fluid flow even at smaller sizes.

Group 13: Kevin Li, Ben Liu, Sean Mahoney

Week 27

April 5, 2019

This week, we finalized our plan of the mechanical portion of the siphon. The siphon was made from a hydrophobic tubing of approximately a quarter the diameter of the catheter tubing. Since folding the tubing would restrict water flow, the tubing was modified so that no folding was necessary. In the following weeks, we plan to rigorously test our new model, fix any quirks with the model, and then move on to calibrating the arduino LED sensor accurate volume output.

Group 13: Kevin Li, Ben Liu, Sean Mahoney

Week 28

April 12, 2019

This week, we 3D printed another siphon cup to better fit the new tubing, and successfully attached the unit so that it is ready for testing. Over this weekend, we will continue to calibrate the arduino sensor to accurately determine the volume of fluid through the siphon. By early next week, we expect to have a fully working model, while also testing the more long-term specifications of the product, including durability and reliability. We expect that with our current pace, the approaching deadline should not be a problem for this project.