决策表

Marijn Mulders
{"title":"决策表","authors":"Marijn Mulders","doi":"10.4324/9781003022022-35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Decision Table The goal of the Gait Analysis Improvement Team project is to design and develop an improved method to obtain quantitative measurements of the forces transmitted through below-knee prostheses. These measurements should be connected to suggested alignment changes that would improve the gait of a patient. In general, the design should provide a more scientific and cost effective procedure for the initial fitting of a prosthesis, including determination of the best alignment. Several alternatives for the design have been researched and ranked according to their adherence to the criteria described below. The intended end user of this design is a prosthetist working with an amputee in a clinical setting. Because amputees typically have more difficulty with balance than non-amputees, safety is a primary concern and a heavily-weighted criterion in the decision-making process. Any device that is incorporated into the fitting procedure must not compromise the safety of existing prostheses and related equipment. The next most important criterion is cost. The budget for this project is restricted to $1,200 and the device must also present an economical alternative to existing methods of computerized gait analysis. Additional cost guidelines were suggested by our technical consultant. The device should not exceed $150 if it is used fewer than five times. If it is used for more than five prosthesis fitting appointments, it may cost up to $500. These are rough estimates but should be considered when evaluating potential solutions. The design will not be successful unless it can be used along with existing (standard) prosthesis components, so compatibility is the third most important criterion. If force measurements are not consistent, accurate and precise, the project will fall short of the goals. Therefore measurement quality is ranked fourth among the working criteria. The final two criteria are durability and ease of use for the end-users (clinicians working with amputees). Ideally, the design will be able to withstand many uses rather than serve as one-time-use equipment. If it is not easy to install, operate and remove, it is not likely to appeal to a clinician in an average prosthetic facility. Design Alternatives The brainstorming session for this project resulted in five alternatives to be considered. The first alternative is the Smart Pyramid TM by Orthocare Innovations (Smart Pyramid, 2009). The Smart Pyramid TM replaces the standard pyramid in any socket and allows for computerized gait analysis with its embedded sensors. When the Compas TM …","PeriodicalId":261655,"journal":{"name":"101 Management Models","volume":"7 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision Table\",\"authors\":\"Marijn Mulders\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781003022022-35\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Decision Table The goal of the Gait Analysis Improvement Team project is to design and develop an improved method to obtain quantitative measurements of the forces transmitted through below-knee prostheses. These measurements should be connected to suggested alignment changes that would improve the gait of a patient. In general, the design should provide a more scientific and cost effective procedure for the initial fitting of a prosthesis, including determination of the best alignment. Several alternatives for the design have been researched and ranked according to their adherence to the criteria described below. The intended end user of this design is a prosthetist working with an amputee in a clinical setting. Because amputees typically have more difficulty with balance than non-amputees, safety is a primary concern and a heavily-weighted criterion in the decision-making process. Any device that is incorporated into the fitting procedure must not compromise the safety of existing prostheses and related equipment. The next most important criterion is cost. The budget for this project is restricted to $1,200 and the device must also present an economical alternative to existing methods of computerized gait analysis. Additional cost guidelines were suggested by our technical consultant. The device should not exceed $150 if it is used fewer than five times. If it is used for more than five prosthesis fitting appointments, it may cost up to $500. These are rough estimates but should be considered when evaluating potential solutions. The design will not be successful unless it can be used along with existing (standard) prosthesis components, so compatibility is the third most important criterion. If force measurements are not consistent, accurate and precise, the project will fall short of the goals. Therefore measurement quality is ranked fourth among the working criteria. The final two criteria are durability and ease of use for the end-users (clinicians working with amputees). Ideally, the design will be able to withstand many uses rather than serve as one-time-use equipment. If it is not easy to install, operate and remove, it is not likely to appeal to a clinician in an average prosthetic facility. Design Alternatives The brainstorming session for this project resulted in five alternatives to be considered. The first alternative is the Smart Pyramid TM by Orthocare Innovations (Smart Pyramid, 2009). The Smart Pyramid TM replaces the standard pyramid in any socket and allows for computerized gait analysis with its embedded sensors. When the Compas TM …\",\"PeriodicalId\":261655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"101 Management Models\",\"volume\":\"7 3\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"101 Management Models\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022022-35\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"101 Management Models","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003022022-35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

步态分析改进小组项目的目标是设计和开发一种改进的方法,以获得通过膝下假体传递的力的定量测量。这些测量应该连接到建议的调整,将改善病人的步态。一般来说,设计应提供一个更科学和成本效益的程序,初步拟合假体,包括确定最佳对准。对设计的几个备选方案进行了研究,并根据它们是否符合以下描述的标准进行了排名。该设计的预期最终用户是在临床环境中与截肢者一起工作的义肢医生。由于截肢者通常比非截肢者在平衡方面有更多的困难,因此在决策过程中,安全是首要考虑的问题,也是一个权重很高的标准。在装配过程中使用的任何装置不得危及现有假体和相关设备的安全性。下一个最重要的标准是成本。这个项目的预算被限制在1200美元以内,而且该设备还必须提供一种比现有计算机步态分析方法更经济的替代方案。我们的技术顾问提出了额外的费用指南。如果使用次数少于5次,则不应超过150美元。如果使用它进行5次以上的假体安装预约,费用可能高达500美元。这些都是粗略的估计,但在评估潜在的解决方案时应予以考虑。除非能与现有的(标准)假体部件一起使用,否则这种设计不会成功,因此兼容性是第三个最重要的标准。如果力的测量不一致、不准确、不精确,项目将达不到目标。因此,测量质量在工作准则中排名第四。最后两个标准是耐用性和最终用户(与截肢者一起工作的临床医生)的易用性。理想情况下,这种设计将能够承受多次使用,而不是作为一次性使用的设备。如果它不容易安装、操作和移除,它就不太可能吸引普通假肢机构的临床医生。这个项目的头脑风暴会议产生了五个可供考虑的方案。第一种选择是Orthocare Innovations的智能金字塔TM(智能金字塔,2009)。智能金字塔TM取代了任何插座中的标准金字塔,并允许计算机化步态分析其嵌入式传感器。当Compas TM…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decision Table
Decision Table The goal of the Gait Analysis Improvement Team project is to design and develop an improved method to obtain quantitative measurements of the forces transmitted through below-knee prostheses. These measurements should be connected to suggested alignment changes that would improve the gait of a patient. In general, the design should provide a more scientific and cost effective procedure for the initial fitting of a prosthesis, including determination of the best alignment. Several alternatives for the design have been researched and ranked according to their adherence to the criteria described below. The intended end user of this design is a prosthetist working with an amputee in a clinical setting. Because amputees typically have more difficulty with balance than non-amputees, safety is a primary concern and a heavily-weighted criterion in the decision-making process. Any device that is incorporated into the fitting procedure must not compromise the safety of existing prostheses and related equipment. The next most important criterion is cost. The budget for this project is restricted to $1,200 and the device must also present an economical alternative to existing methods of computerized gait analysis. Additional cost guidelines were suggested by our technical consultant. The device should not exceed $150 if it is used fewer than five times. If it is used for more than five prosthesis fitting appointments, it may cost up to $500. These are rough estimates but should be considered when evaluating potential solutions. The design will not be successful unless it can be used along with existing (standard) prosthesis components, so compatibility is the third most important criterion. If force measurements are not consistent, accurate and precise, the project will fall short of the goals. Therefore measurement quality is ranked fourth among the working criteria. The final two criteria are durability and ease of use for the end-users (clinicians working with amputees). Ideally, the design will be able to withstand many uses rather than serve as one-time-use equipment. If it is not easy to install, operate and remove, it is not likely to appeal to a clinician in an average prosthetic facility. Design Alternatives The brainstorming session for this project resulted in five alternatives to be considered. The first alternative is the Smart Pyramid TM by Orthocare Innovations (Smart Pyramid, 2009). The Smart Pyramid TM replaces the standard pyramid in any socket and allows for computerized gait analysis with its embedded sensors. When the Compas TM …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信