LAB 3A WRITE-UP
Data Set 1
Heart Rate Mean(Gold Standard) 98.08977 bpm
Standard Deviation(Gold Standard) 23.03054 bpm.
Heart Rate Mean(Spree Headband) 98.94079 bpm
Standard Deviation(Spree Headband) 24.83749 bpm.
Standard Error(Gold Standard) 1.3207 bpm.
Standard Error(Spree Headband) 1.429201 bpm.
Data Set 2
Temperature Mean(Gold Standard) 96.67484 F
Standard Deviation(Gold Standard) 1.919428 F
Temperature Mean(Spree Headband) 95.56766 F
Standard Deviation(Spree Headband) .870378 F
Standard Error(Gold Standard) .106635 F
Standard Error(Spree Headband) .048354 F
T-Test(Unpaired) for Heart Rate(Gold Standard & Spree Headband): .666059, Insignificant
T-Test(Unpaired) for Temperature(Gold Standard & Spree Headband): 4.39866e-20, Significant
The design flaws in the spree headband was that it could only measure your temperature in 3 degree increments, so it wasn't very accurate at reading temperature. It also caused the user discomfort as it looked odd on the head. Another flaw is that the headband was expensive for what it did. The band that read the temperature was also on an exposed part of the body that wasn't shielded from radical outside temperature changes.
We recommend keeping the headband sensor for heart rate monitoring but using a separate attachment for reading the temperature that also measures the temperature more accurately, not in 3 degree increments.
LAB 3B WRITE-UP
Target Population and Need
The target population of this technology is not very specific. The nature of the technology is such that it would be able to cater to a wide variety of people, and their health care needs, and become commonplace whenever someone suffers a broken bone. The beauty of this technology is not that it provides some new treatment, it is that it prevents unnecessary treatment, as it allows health care professionals to track the progress of sub dermal healing without having to remove a cast or other type of semi permanent brace. If this technology could be implemented in such a way that it would be affordable to patients, in the long run, it would save both the user and the caretaker time and money.
The device design is relatively simple: a small sub dermal sensor would be placed near the site of injury that would use ultra sound to monitor the progress of healing while a receptor would be placed within the body of the cast. The information gathered from the sensor would then transmit to the receptor which would then format the information to be able to be viewed on any compatible display, allowing a care taker to determine when the most optimal time to remove the cast would be. Because the cast would be removed as soon as the bone has healed, the cast would not be worn for any extra time than would be necessary. The relatively simple design would yield a relatively straightforward outcome which would save users time and money.
The mean recovery time for a traditional cast was 50.5 days, while the mean recovery time for the Fractionless cast was 37.3 days.
The standard deviation for the traditional recovery time was 9.5713 days, and the standard deviation for the Fractionless cast was 4.64 days.
The result of the t-test between the two was .0009954, meaning there was a significant difference between the recovery time of our cast and a traditional cast.