Product Progress Report

This week in ISM, I wrote an Evidence of Learning, had a phone call meeting with my mentor, and completed a Product Progress report. During my phone call meeting with Mr. Wilson, we discussed the estimated costs of a shuttle lock system vs. an electronic vacuum and the role of insurance in helping patients cover these costs. I realized that a complete prosthesis with a vacuum is approximately three times more expensive than a temporary one with a shuttle lock, and this difference is most likely due to the amount of technology in a vacuum that supports a higher activity level for the patient. A complete prosthesis includes the prosthetic leg, any adjustments that are made, and all patient visits under that single device, so the price seems much more reasonable for a final vacuum because these legs can typically last about five years before they need replacement. Also, some patients are able to use the same socket when transitioning from a temporary prosthesis to their final device, so this will significantly decrease the overall cost. In my Product Progress report, I described everything I have accomplished so far in regards to my Final Product and what else I have left to complete before Final Presentation Night. As of right now, my mentor and I are ahead of the deadlines on my Final Product Calendar, so I can spend more time testing out various combinations before I choose the best version for my finished product. I'm planning on fully finishing both prosthetic legs by May 8th, which will ensure that I have enough time to account for any potential setbacks while I'm building my Final Product and focus on other aspects of Final Presentation Night as well. This upcoming week, I have scheduled another phone call with my mentor, and I will draft out the information for my FPN program brochure.

Information about FPN

This week in ISM, we discussed the different components of Final Presentation Night and a general to-do list before the actual event. So far, I've been focusing exclusively on developing my Final Product and updating my portfolio every few weeks, but there are several other tasks I need to complete as well, such as creating invitations and door signs, making a program brochure, coming up with a guest list, choosing a classroom, and starting to draft my 30-35 minute speech outlining my ISM experience and Final Product. Even though FPN is still two months away, I know that time will fly by, so staying organized and ahead of schedule will definitely ensure that I'm fully prepared by May 20th. I also had a mentor visit this week, and during this visit, Mr. Wilson and I pulled a clear test socket for my Final Product and decided on the majority of the patient's characteristics. Because we are going to be building two separate prosthetic legs for this individual, we talked about why we chose the specific suspension systems and what reasons could justify different design elements of the prosthesis in regards to the patient. Pulling the test socket was really interesting, and I was surprised by how quickly the plastic cooled and molded to the plaster model. I was also able to see how small changes could be made later to the socket by heating a small section of the plastic and pushing on it to reduce pressure on specific areas of the patient's leg. This upcoming week, I will write another Evidence of Learning and read through notes my mentor sent to me about types of suspension systems for specific patient types.

Choosing a Patient

This week in ISM, I had a phone call meeting with my mentor, updated my blog, and discussed my Original Work with classmates. During our phone call, mentor and I revised our previous idea of designing two prosthetic legs: one for an above the knee patient and another for a below the knee patient. Because an above knee device is significantly different from a below knee, building this product would essentially mean that I'll have to create two patients, instead of one. As a result, the purpose behind having an above knee and below knee device would be lost, because each prosthesis wouldn't be fundamentally identical, despite the use of the same suspension system. And since I was initially trying to compare a single suspension system within the category of type of prosthesis, I would no longer be able to draw as strong of a conclusion at the end. Therefore, my mentor and I decided to create a single patient with specific characteristics and then design two prosthetic legs for that individual: one immediately following surgery and another approximately a year later, when the leg has stabilized and is no longer rapidly losing muscle mass. I think this idea will allow me to not only incorporate different suspension systems but also practice a realistic approach to treating a patient. Furthermore, I will choose this patient by looking through several links my mentor sent me describing actual patient experiences, so I can either base the patient for whom I'm designing this prosthesis off a real individual or through compiling various characteristics from several people. This upcoming week, I have scheduled a mentor visit, so I plan on finalizing the details for my patient and pulling the sockets for my final product.