Design Innovation for Health and Medicine

Erez Nusem, Karla Straker, Cara Wrigley

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9789811543616
• eBook ISBN: 9789811543623
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Management
• Index: Social Sciences

Design Innovation for Health and Medicine offers an innovative approach for solving complex healthcare issues. In this book, three design experts examine a range of case studies to explain how design is used in health and medicine—exploring issues such as diverse patient needs, an ageing population and the impact of globalisation on disease. These case studies, along with high-profile industry projects conducted by the authors over the past decade, inform a novel framework for designing and implementing innovative solutions in this context. The book aims to assist designers, medical engineers, clinicians and researchers to shape the next era of healthcare.

© The Author(s) 2020

E. Nusem et al.Design Innovation for Health and Medicinehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4362-3_1

Begin Abstract

1. Medical Design

The Design and Development of Products for Health or Medical Purposes

Erez Nusem¹  , Karla Straker¹   and Cara Wrigley¹  

(1)

School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

 

 

Erez Nusem (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

 

Karla Straker

Email: [email protected]

 

Cara Wrigley

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

Design is often interrelated with engineering in the disciplines of health and medicine, and is typically represented by medical products and devices created by medical engineers or ‘mechanical designers’—a mix of mechanical engineering and industrial design. Such medical products and devices have often favoured technological advancement over ‘design’ and patients’ needs and requirements. Despite a preoccupation with technical solutions, engineers sometimes refer to themselves as ‘designers’, resulting in a great deal of confusion about what design actually is, who practises it and how. It’s important to note that engineers and designers approach design in fundamentally different ways.

Take for example the product AcceleGlove, created by Jose Hernandez-Rebollar of George Washington University to ‘translate’ sign language into text and speech (see Fig. 1.1 for an early iteration of the device). The basic concept for this wearable technology dates back to the early 1980s, when engineers from Bell Labs in the USA explored human–computer interaction through gestures, which later led to the invention of a glove that used the 26 manual gestures of the American Manual Alphabet for data entry.¹ The engineers’ intent was that the AcceleGlove be used to simplify interactions between those with a hearing disability and those without, claiming that the device could translate American sign language. However, the glove’s design and technologies overlooked the intricacies of sign language. The glove was only able to translate individual letters, not the full range of signs commonly used. AcceleGlove was designed on a set of assumptions that didn’t reflect the needs of deaf signers.

Fig. 1.1

AcceleGlove

Engineers are taught to isolate a problem and focus on the detail. While this is a necessary and important method in some fields of work, it can overlook the intricacies critical to the success of products used in social or day-to-day contexts. In the instance of this technology, the engineers focused primarily on what the hands do, rather than on how deaf people receive and send information (i.e., how they communicate). They also failed to consider the broader social context in which the device would be used. Similar products such as SignAloud and the BrightSign Glove have been developed more recently, leveraging modern technologies such as machine learning. However, these still fail to capture the nuances of individual signers.²

Design, as practised by engineers and demonstrated in the previous example, is traditionally driven by a problem presented by a clinician. The design process is guided by a Quality Management System³ which frames clinicians as the ‘users’. While the patient problem is known, patients are not explicitly consulted and their needs are largely assumed. In such a scenario, an engineer takes the problem and works towards a solution. The problem and solution are both concrete—i.e., tangible things that an engineer can grapple with. Such a process is illustrated in Fig. 1.2.

Fig. 1.2

The engineering design process

On the other hand, holistic design processes also grapple with the abstract: the insights and ideas that might inform a solution. This abstract realm is where a designer challenges their own assumptions in relation to the problem, gathers insights from stakeholders (such as patients) and tests their thinking and ideas objectively. It can be difficult to recognise the value of these activities, as the outcomes can often be intangible. However, these activities often lead to a more profound understanding of a problem (or even lead to a different, previously overlooked problem that needs to be addressed). These methods allow designers to question why a problem exists, rather than purely focusing on how it can be addressed, and result in far improved, and at times radically different, solutions. It can be challenging to demonstrate the value that design offers in healthcare; it requires an open discourse and shared understanding of not only how these outcomes can be achieved, but also the very meaning of ‘design’.

As a term ‘design process’ is somewhat of an oxymoron. Indeed, defining standard practice for something inherently creative is a challenge. However, there are a number of phases—research, define, create, test and implement—that generally take place in the design of new products, services or systems. As design is iterative and at times ambiguous, these phases do not always occur in the same order. For example, as shown in Fig. 1.3, sometimes design may begin with defining the problem, followed by research, the conception of solutions, testing, revision or redesign of the solution(s), and finish with implementation.

Fig. 1.3

The design process

Footnotes

1

The AcceleGlove case study is based on an article written by Michael Erard. For more information, see Michael Erard, “Why Sign-Language Gloves Don’t Help Deaf People,” The Atlantic, 2017, https://​www.​theatlantic.​com/​.

 

2

Keith Kirkpatrick, “Technology for the Deaf,” Communications of the ACM 61, no. 12 (2018): 16–18.

 

3

ISO 13485:2016 Medical devices—Quality management systems—Requirements for regulatory purposes. Available at https://​www.​iso.​org/​.

 

© The Author(s) 2020

E. Nusem et al.Design Innovation for Health and Medicinehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4362-3_2

Begin Abstract

2. Describing Design

Erez Nusem¹ , Karla Straker¹ and Cara Wrigley¹

(1)

School of Architecture, Design and Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Erez Nusem (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

Karla Straker

Email: [email protected]

Cara Wrigley

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

The word ‘design’ has many uses. As the discipline of design has evolved the role of design as a verb—i.e., the actions and thoughts involved in the process of designing—has become increasingly prominent. Building on Heskett’s work,¹ we refer to design in three ways:

• as a noun, depicting the field or discipline of design
• as a noun, referring to a design output (a tangible or intangible artefact that has been designed)
• as a verb.

As a Noun

Design comes in many forms, and is comprised of numerous disciplines (e.g. architectural design, industrial design, graphic design, etc.). One prominent model that summarises the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Medical Design
• 2. Describing Design
• Part I. Intent
• Part II
• Back Matter