BME100 f2016:Group8 W1030AM L1

From OpenWetWare
Jump to: navigation, search
Owwnotebook icon.png BME 100 Fall 2016 Home
People
Lab Write-Up 1 | Lab Write-Up 2 | Lab Write-Up 3
Lab Write-Up 4 | Lab Write-Up 5 | Lab Write-Up 6
Course Logistics For Instructors
Photos
Wiki Editing Help
BME494 Asu logo.png


OUR TEAM

Name: Your name
Name: Your name
Name: Your name
Name: Your name
Name: Your name
Name: Your name

LAB 1 WRITE-UP

Health Care Issue

Healthcare providers may deliver medication and other substances directly to a patient’s internals through a variety of tubes and catheters. These delivery systems are assembled and attached to external supplies using connectors called Luer connectors. These are small connectors that can be used to easily connect thin tubing and create a leak-proof seal. It is not uncommon for a patient to have multiple systems of tubing that provide a path for delivery to the vascular, enteral, respiratory, epidural and intrathecal systems. Because of the prevalence and ease of use of the Luer connector, they are sometimes mistakenly connected to the wrong delivery system and drugs are administered to the patient is a way that causes harm and/or death. Creating unique connectors for the various delivery systems that would be easily distinguishable one from another as well as incompatible with one another would greatly reduce these occurances.

(http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/UCM134873.pdf)



Competitors

Feeding tubes currently are not safe enough because tubes and connectors can easily get confused and get connected to somewhere they should not be which can cause harm to the patient. (technological problem) The biggest competitors for our patent are FREKA, Bard Medical, Corpak,BICAKCILAR, and Securmed.

Advantages
Our product is the only one that has an easily distinguishable system besides Securmed and Bicakcilar's designs which are both color coded. However, ours is the only feeding tube that has connectors which are incompatible with certain pieces for the safety of the patient. Our connecting system is by far the safest one, but even though it may not be the most effective one.


Disadvantages
Since our product can not be used for more than one connection, it is more time consuming to use, and more expspensive than all of the other feeding tubes because it can not be used for multiple purposes. Some potential buyers may be deterred from our product because they value their limited budget more than the little bit of additional safety that our product brings. On average, these feeding tubes cost approximately $25 per tube which adds up very fast when each tube can only serve one purpose.

http://www.medicalexpo.com/medical-manufacturer/enteral-feeding-tube-4909.html


Customer Validation

Patient
This advancement will interest the patient because it's benefiting their wellness and safety in the hospital. Patient receives a higher level of care and better safety.


Payer
The unique attachments will provide a financial reward for the payer. With this advancement it will benefit the payer because of the decrease in accidents and even deaths. Payers are interested in a low price and a high quality technology. This technology will provide a huge benefit to cost ratio.


Physician
This advancement is easy to use and it will decrease the amount of accidents that happen, in the hospital, due to user error. With that, there are lower malpractice insurance cost and it is more profitable for the physician. Also, with this advanced, easy to use technology, there are low training costs.


Provider
The unique attachments on feeding tubes will provide a financial reward for the provider, it will be beneficial in a way that will decrease the amounts of accidents in the work place. Higher manufacturing cost, but due to its safety, sales would increase. This advancment reduces risks for physicians and hospitals.

Purchaser

The product is extremely affordable and easy to make. What interests the purchaser is a low price and a high quality technology. With this advancement there is a cheaper insurance cost, and safer device. There may be initial training cost, but this means for added safety and less chances of wrongful death.

(http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/newsletters/quality-matters/2012/april-may/in-focus) (http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/TubingandLuerMisconnections/ucm433355.htm)

IP Position

Polyurethane feeding tube and associated adaptors US6464686B1 Grant Date 2002-10-15 Polyurethane or Carbothane feeding tube with inlet and outlet conduits. The design includes a cap for closing the inlet conduit. Patent 1.png

Low profile adaptor for use with a medical catheter US6666853B2 Grant Date 2003-12-23 Adaptor which allows for the opening or closing of the medical catheter, such as a gastronomy feeding tube, to allow or stop the flow of catheter fluids. Patent 2.png

Catheter assembly and method of catheter insertion US20040158229A1 Publication Date 2004-8-12 Full Catheter assembly for gastronomy feeding tube, includes method for insertion and connector for tube changes. Patent 3.png

Fundability Worksheet Scores

Competitors
2- Our product is a safer product which would be more useful to the patient. However, most of our buyers would look for a cheaper alternative that can provide the same function. Since our product is not interchangeable, it is less cost effective which gives our competitors an extra edge in the market.

Customer Validation
2- The product is one that many would show interest in. It's a product that is beneficial from all 5 perspectives. The advancement may cost more but it provides a huge benefit to cost ratio.

IP Position

3. There are multiple issued patents within this technology sector which indicates that it is a good field for obtaining a patent. It also indicates that the competition sees it as a worthy place for innovation and investment.