Tech4Life

Neal Ungerleider has written a nice summary of some of the new tech that was presented this week at MIT. Interesting to see who is funding what and to ponder some of the applications in disability & ageing. Neal highlights a couple he things would be good in the disability space.

He specifically identifies the concept of ‘prosthetic brain implants’ as a solution for memory loss in brain degenerative conditions. This highlights yet again to me that we must wrestle now with what we value in humans. Once we can start tinkering with our memories (through a mechanistic way by adding them in) and so on, we undermine aspects of the biological diversity that makes humankind so interesting.

What do you think?

Rampup on the ABC web is a great place for some opinion pieces and good writing about issues and aspects of disability.

A recent opinion piece by Damian Griffis called “Disability in Indigenous communities; addressing the disadvantage” has some good background. I’m not sure that Damian has done a great job at actually telling us the strategies to address the disadvantage but he’s certainly highlighted many of the issues. It’s also good to see that First Person’s Disability Network (Australia) is going to push these factors as part of the NDIS, but it is really small so it needs partners and cooperation. Motivation Australia and CBM Australia have both done significant work in this space in the last few years. Perhaps some funding to help indigenous people to work with these and other organisations to craft what would work is what’s needed to make equity in rural and remote Australia a reality?

(Declaration: I’m on the Board of Motivation Australia)

This looks a fascinating evening presentation on “Medical Bionics: An Interdisciplinary Approach” on 29 May.  Unfortunately I’ll be in Milan for ISO meetings so even the broadcast sessions (something I think TED does so well) will probably be hard to link to.

Remember that Wollongong is the place that took up much of the work on artificial muscles and other applied engineering things.  Worth a look…

I don’t know if I could give such a neat potted snapshot of my day as Byron and Mary Albury have here.

Great journalism work by the ABC to capture why NDIS will make such a difference to our society – let alone those of us with disabilities.

In between comments on Productivity Commission Reports, I received this today from one of my listservs.

How to Motivate People: Skip the Bonus and Give Them a Real Project

BY Cliff KuangThu May 13, 2010

Social experiments have upended almost everything that modern management takes as a given. ….

Fits with my experience both as an employee and a manager. The video is well worth the few minutes to watch.

This article “ the Seven Deadly Charity Myths” came across my email a day or so ago from the UK. Drafted from within a ‘peak body’ it could be seen to be partisan, but it does effectively debunk a lot of the common misconceptions many (particularly business or government have when a charity challenges them) have. Just note that the UK has a Charities Commission to guide and oversee the sector. Australia is to get one of these within the next 2yrs so that should weed out the rogues who currently can give others a bad name.

I always think the bigger issue to be asked is ‘who are you doing it for?’ If the charity is true to its aims and is sticking up for those it claims to serve (and is truly listening to those people) – then good on them. If it has morphed into yet another institution that exists for its own self, then I begin to question its existence – and even its ethics.

Upfront I should declare my interests. I chair the Australian Standards Committee responsible for assistive technologies (ME067), and I am currently Convenor for the ISO (TC173 SC1) working groups responsible for wheelchair testing systems (WG1) and seating (WG11). So yes I get standards.

But I also hear a prevailing counter argument, namely that standards hinder innovation, or they make it hard for end-users to get what they need. This is the reason given by so many I talk to (and I hear my colleagues around the world with similar stories) why they don’t have much time for standards.

There have been studies published that have clearly demonstrated the improved performance of wheelchairs (for instance) that have meet agreed international standards (see Hartridge & Seeger, Assistive Tech, 2000; Fitzgerald, Cooper et al, ArchPhyMedRehab, 2001 etc). At the ISO working group meetings, manufacturers will reflect on what they see happening in the field, vs. what happens in their test labs. And the ISO standards rarely include elements that don’t link to some real life problem or issue. They are set as a minimum benchmark so when an end-user parts with hard earned cash/voucher/entitlement they have some hope that the device will deliver reasonable service.

Does this keep AT more expensive that it could be? Yes it does. I have seen/heard of the results of $50 manual wheelchairs (available for sale) undergoing fatigue testing that simply disintegrate half way through the test. It costs money to build devices with quality materials, to design out pinch points, to ensure that upholstery has a degree of fire resistance. I think that is money well spent though.

Does it stop/hinder innovation? No I don’t think so. Let’s take the case of the iBot3000. This was ground breaking technology. Few people had conceived of any device operating by balancing on two wheels – let alone a wheelchair. Yet the DEKA research & development pushed ahead having demonstrated the concepts. What is particularly impressive though is that they engaged with the standards process. As a result many of the standards were redrafted so that the performance required did NOT force a design restriction – i.e. assuming chairs had to have 3 or more wheels on the ground. It was achieved, and the IBot passes the ISO tests, and more.

A current focus for those in wheelchair standards is the more challenging conditions in less resourced settings (aka the developing world). Some of our tests are not tough enough for them!

Can standards help? Yes. Apart from better product, it also makes it possible for products to work together. The IT/telecommunications sector is full of standards so my mobile phone will work seamlessly in most places, and my computer’s IP port will connect even if I’m in Ireland. Same for AT. Standards aim to make it possible for users to get their chair into a bus, and tied down in a taxi. Communication devices are full of IT standards so they can use peripherals. And the list could go on.

So if we put some effort into good international standards that were readily available (yes I agree the cost of the standards is daft) we could eliminate some trashy and dangerous products – that just don’t do the job. We could then focus on innovating to address issues end users have every day, and perhaps creating even better options to the iBot. I look forward to the day when our standards committee has to wrestle with testing a levitating support frame as a mobility solution!

Today the Federal Government released the final Productivity Commission Report into Caring for Older Australians (i.e. Aged-Care). I contributed submissions to both the initial phase and then in response to the Draft Report.

It is encouraging to see that I was not alone in recommending a greater understanding and use of assistive technology (AT) in assisting older people with independence. Unfortunately though the Commission has not overtly challenged the sector to take up assistive technology. Under the section headed ‘Technology’ in the Overview, the emphasis is on removing barriers to appropriate use of technology including funding barriers. This is to be welcomed, as is their assertion that the proposed ‘Gateway assessment process’ and Clearinghouse will enhance awareness of the place of technology and availability early on for older people.

As I noted in my submission though, the aged care sector generally has a woeful uptake of AT (in my opinion). I look at the mobility solutions I see older Australians using and hear of people ‘giving up’ valued activities because they ‘can’t use a keyboard anymore’ – and I despair! Simple fixes, often costing only $100 or so can transform access. Yet when I mention this to older people, and their families, they are amazed – ‘I didn’t realise.’

And then there is the urgent need for more older person centred/engaged research and evaluation. What works for them, what makes a difference, what are their priorities. Unfortunately I didn’t see this mentioned in the PC Report in terms of having older people do their own research (active researchers!). They mention the ‘Urbis’ Report (Vol 2 p140) but forgot to add it to the references section… ah well.

So let’s hope there is more uptake out there. I think the best scheme would be a ‘TupperwareTM’ type morning tea in community centres/libraries around the country to lift general awareness of the type of simple things out there that can make a difference. And then a ‘flying squad’ (perhaps like this Gateway body) that can meet older people within a couple of days of a serious illness (like stroke, head injury, etc) so simple adjustments can be made to give them a sense that ‘I can still do this’ – rather than planning to shift into nursing care! Let’s hope.

This video  came through my Linkedin group today and it is a great look at assistive technology uptake – especially in an educational setting.

Enjoy and perhaps talk about it with others.  Lloyd.

Peter Slattery, one of my colleagues from Royal Brisbane Hospital, sent the rehab engineering gang this video on Honda’s

The special wheel is really clever, but it does limit the unit to indoors or at best smooth surfaces. I think though it gives us some idea of the technology that may soon be gracing power wheelchairs and helping to reduce their weight and footprint – a big issue for so many from users to transport providers. Just imagine the difference between lugging a scooter into the car vs. a seat on top of one of these?! Still hanging out for the hover wheelchair…

Lloyd.