Novita Research Report - 2004 to 2007 - Novita Children's Services

More documents

Recommendations

Info

76MethodThe drive for developing an AT innovation network began with an open forum in Adelaide in2004 to discuss the potential for a national, multi-site, collaborative research initiative in thissector. Participants representing end users, universities, government, industry groups andprofessionals participated. All unanimously agreed that work should begin to develop suchan initiative. As the largest group specifically working in AT research and development inAustralia, NovitaTech was tasked with facilitating the group in building a proposal.The Federal Government’s Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) Program was identified asa potential source of funding to establish and then grow the network. NovitaTech was thelead industry participant and Flinders University, Queensland University of Technology andMonash University were the lead university participants. After an extensive consultationprocess, the bid was called the “CRC in Technologies for Independent Living”.ResultsThroughout 2005 a number of presentations and discussions were held with partnerorganisations, associations and key groups to garner interest and involvement in the networkand solicit an indication of support for the proposal. Submitting a CRC bid is a three-stepprocess. Written applications outlining the intent of the CRC and each group’s capability forma filtered Stage 1 and Stage 2 process and applications that show promise are invited to aninterview before a final decision is made.A 10-page Stage 1 application for the CRC bid was submitted on 31 March 2006 andthe group was notified in May that the application was unsuccessful. The CRC SelectionCommittee, although acknowledging the importance of the proposal, did not allow the bidto proceed to Stage 2, highlighting weaknesses in the ability to demonstrate commercialdemand for this development and the inability to meet the current CRC focus oncommercialisation and ‘swift economic return’.ImplicationsStatusThe CRC process was a long and involved journey. While the goal of establishing a CRC wasnot achieved, the exercise of developing a proposal and submitting an application not onlyraised NovitaTech’s profile, but also led to new linkages with government, researchers andindustry associations. Post-CRC activities have focused on building on the momentum anddrive the network developed to continue raising the profile of the AT sector and work towardsdeveloping a Centre of Excellence in the field.Ongoing
77Project titleContributorsSummaryDeveloping an environmental testing protocol for electronic assistive technologydevicesChris Hern (Flinders University), Dr Lloyd Walker, Jeff Price, David HobbsWhen you purchase a new device, you probably don’t immediately wonder ‘how durableis this, and will it break within the first few months of use?’ So if and when the device doesbreak, there is usually a feeling of disappointment and frustration, and time and energy iswasted returning the device to where it was purchased to have it repaired. The anger wouldprobably intensify if you discovered that your device broke because of a small componentfailure that could have been detected if it was tested prior to being sold.Currently, there is no Standard or formal procedure for testing the durability, environmentalconditioning or reliability of electronic assistive technology (AT) devices (such as speechgenerating devices). However, when electronic AT repair records are reviewed, commonfaults that occurred during normal use are detected. If a testing protocol was available totype-test electronic AT devices, a benchmark could be set for an acceptable level of devicefunctionality and performance.The aim of this project was to research and develop a testing protocol that outlines thenecessary procedures and tests that could be performed to ensure electronic AT devicesmeet the requirements and rigour of actual field use.MethodInvestigation into common device failure was conducted to gauge the type of tests necessaryto represent actual breakdown. An environmental protocol or test suite was then developedthat summarised a number of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) EnvironmentalTesting Standards. The draft suite, consisting of 27 test Standards, identified the objectives,apparatus and procedures necessary to perform each test.The 27 tests, selected from a series of more than 60, were deemed to be the mostrepresentative of common device failures and likely environmental exposure. Some testswithin this suite include vibration, dust and sand, drop and topple and fluid contamination.Staff from NovitaTech and Novita were surveyed with regard to the importance and relevanceof each test standard, in order to refine the suite so that the tests most representative offailures could be confirmed and included in the final test protocol.ResultsA review of all NovitaTech Electronics Workshop repair records indicated that physicalbreakage, broken leads and connectors and the ingress of foreign matter were the mostcommon sources of failure for electronic AT devices. Touch screen failure and wear,component failure and circuit board corrosion were also among the common failings.The survey of key staff (including therapists who regularly prescribe electronic AT devicesand see the type of treatment they endure, plus technicians who regularly repair the devices)provided a ranking of the tests in order of importance. Of the 27 tests, seven were ranked‘very important’ (Group A), 10 as ‘important’ (Group B) and 10 as ‘not important/redundant’(Group C). This process refined the draft suite into a document that could be circulatedamongst international peers working in Standard development.
Page 1 and 2:
Research Report2004-2007Connecting
Page 3 and 4:
Welcome to Research at NovitaWelcom
Page 8 and 9:
List of project summariesProject ti
Page 10 and 11:
10Project summariesEnhancing partic
Page 12 and 13:
12MethodThree groups of children ag
Page 14 and 15:
14Project titleContributorsFundingS
Page 16 and 17:
16ResultsThe lowest, highest and me
Page 18 and 19:
18ResultsImplicationsEmergent theme
Page 20 and 21:
20Project titleContributorsSummaryM
Page 22 and 23:
22Project titleContributorsFundingS
Page 24 and 25:
24ResultsThree participants were re
Page 26 and 27: 26Project titleContributorsFundingS
Page 28 and 29: 28MethodA quasi-experimental design
Page 30 and 31: 30Evaluation of measurements, inter
Page 32 and 33: 32ImplicationsFor children and thei
Page 34 and 35: 34ResultsFive students (25%) respon
Page 36 and 37: 36ImplicationsStatusFor consultants
Page 38 and 39: 38Project summariesEvaluation of se
Page 40 and 41: 40Project titleContributorsSummaryM
Page 44 and 45: 44Project titleContributorsSummaryC
Page 46 and 47: 46Results The survey was sent to 22
Page 48 and 49: 48Project titleContributorsSummaryW
Page 50 and 51: 50Project summariesProducts and tec
Page 52 and 53: 52ResultsThe prototype URC that was
Page 54 and 55: 54ResultsImplicationsStatusReferenc
Page 56 and 57: 56MethodThe following process was u
Page 58 and 59: 58ImplicationsStatusThe project was
Page 60 and 61: 60ImplicationsStatusReferencesFamil
Page 62 and 63: 62ResultsThe workshop series began
Page 66 and 67: 66ResultsImplicationsStatusThree im
Page 68 and 69: 68MethodResultsImplicationsStatusAt
Page 70 and 71: 70Project titleContributorsFundingS
Page 78 and 79: 78ImplicationsThe ongoing use and i
Page 80 and 81: 80ImplicationsStatusThis system is
Page 82 and 83: 82Other refereed publicationsNguyen
Page 84 and 85: 84Australian Group on Severe Commun
Page 86 and 87: 86Mobility 2005, Exeter, UK• Outc
Page 88 and 89: 88Grants and awards received*Novita
Page 90 and 91: 902005 Australian and New Zealand A
Page 92: Head Office171 Days RoadRegency Par
show all

Novita Research Report - 2004 to 2007 - Novita Children's Services

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?