Development of a Connected Sensor System in Colorectal Surgery: User-Centered Design Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A successful innovative medical device is not only technically challenging to develop but must also be readily usable to be integrated into health care professionals' daily practice. Through a user-centered design (UCD) approach, usability can be improved. However, this type of approach is not widely implemented from the early stages of medical device development. OBJECTIVE: The case study presented here shows how UCD may be applied at the very early stage of the design of a disruptive medical device used in a complex hospital environment, while no functional device is available yet. The device under study is a connected sensor system to detect colorectal anastomotic leakage, the most detrimental complication following colorectal surgery, which has a high medical cost. We also aimed to provide usability guidelines for the initial design of other innovative medical devices. METHODS: UCD was implemented by actively involving health care professionals and all the industrial partners of the project. The methodology was conducted in 2 European hospitals: Grenoble-Alpes University Hospital (France) and Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam (the Netherlands). A total of 6 elective colorectal procedures and 5 ward shifts were observed. In total, 4 workshops were conducted with project partners and clinicians. A formative evaluation was performed based on 5 usability tests using nonfunctional prototype systems. The case study was completed within 12 months. RESULTS: Functional specifications were defined for the various components of the medical device: device weight, size, design, device attachment, and display module. These specifications consider the future integration of the medical device into current clinical practice (for use in an operating room and patient follow-up inside the hospital) and interactions between surgeons, nurses, nurse assistants, and patients. By avoiding irrelevant technical development, this approach helps to promote cost-effective design. CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents the successful deployment over 12 months of a UCD methodology for the design of an innovative medical device during its early development phase. To help in reusing this methodology to design other innovative medical devices, we suggested best practices based on this case.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".