Medical Device Prototyping – A Sometimes Viscous Cycle

I’ve talked quite a bit about the importance of prototyping in the past. I’m really appreciating the value of having (or not having) a prototype with the current medical device startup I’m working with. And let me say, that while having a prototype is very useful, having a prototype that is the wrong dimensions may be detrimental. I’ll explain.

This project stalled a couple months ago due to product design concepts. There were a couple of ideas presented on paper along with a 3D prototype that had missed the mark. So, we went back to the drawing board–literally. New thumbnail concepts and ideas were sketched. A few of these were tweaked and refined into 3D images on screen. Progress was being made, albeit much more slowly than I liked.

And then there was a positive turn in momentum, all based on a really smart idea. The contract manufacturer resource, for whom the industrial designer / mechanical engineer works, suggested building a 3D form model to scale in order to give the startup something to hold, versus conceptualizing via looking at computer screen and printed images. It was a great idea. The CM used a chunk of hard wax and machined the basic shape of the device. This was given to the startup, and the result was good. Really good. The wax model was updated a couple times, and before long the shape and size of the device had been determined.

Victory. A small one, but a victory nonetheless. Now the CAD work could focus on the shape. No more thumbnail sketches required. And now, I could hone in on some of the finer details, such as color (more details on this another time). Within a week or so, the crude wax model was turning into detailed, dimensioned design. For the first time in a long time, it felt like this project was moving forward.

It was then time to have another 3D prototype, this time to scale with exact dimensions. The timing of the prototype was discussed last week. It was to be ready Monday. I would review the prototype with the CM and designer and then take to the startup. This 3D prototype, while resembling the wax model, was off a little. And in the days leading up to the prototype build, I reviewed sketches on drawings, showing how everything would go together. It soon hit me that this prototype was bigger than the wax model. I started to realize there could be an issue.

After the meeting with the CM, I took the prototype to meet with the startup. Upon unveiling it, he stated “. . . the butt got big . . .” We couldn’t help but laugh. While the startup can be tough at times, he is nearly always fair. Plus, this is his product. The victory I felt after the wax model experience melted away. It now felt hollow and misguided. We now have to go back to do some overhaul of the design based on the impression left from the wax model. The startup was left with a certain impression about size and features the wax model help establish.

While 3D prototypes are pretty important to medical device product development, realize that they can also be detrimental, or at least damaging. Be sure that you communicate what the prototype is intended to convey. Be sure you are clear about the purpose of the prototypes. Realize that each prototype will leave a lasting impression. Be sure that the impression left is the one you have in mind.

 

Helping Medical Device Inventor By Paying It Forward

During the past few weeks, I have been helping a person I don’t know and have only met once via a Skype video call get feedback about his medical device concept. The person did not offer me any compensation, nor did I request any payment. I just offered to put some feelers out and see what kind of feedback and responses I could get.

Why? I know I have a top-notch network and am either already connected or easily could be connected with physicians who can and will provide feedback for the inventor. I know that I can help this person understand the medical device product development process just a little better. I know that if the idea isn’t worth pursuing, taking this approach makes the best sense for the inventor–spend as little as possible to find out if the idea is worth taking to the next step. I believe if the idea has merit, this inventor (and maybe others like him) will have an interest in working with Creo Quality.

Yes, it’s definitely a “pay it forward” kind of strategy. Yes, I realize I may never receive any revenue from doing something like this. And that’s okay.

While the feedback is still coming in, I did get one response from an expert in this particular device space. The expert is very interested in helping with a prototype and other business development / research activities. I connected him directly with the inventor.

Medical Device Prototyping: An Interview with Larry O’Cull, Priio

I recently conducted an interview with Larry O’Cull, President of Priio on the topic of medical device prototyping.

 

 

Creo Quality: Tell us a little about Priio. Give us the 30-second pitch.

Larry O’Cull: Priio does ‘whole solution’ product development, whether it’s creating new products or fixing current problems. We generate products from basic concept to anywhere along the ideation-to-creation process using industrial design, software development, and mechanical and electrical engineering (often small medical or electronic devices with interactive intelligence).

Our ‘special sauce’ is a keen understanding of human factors engineering – because we believe product function should be obvious to the user as well as pleasing in design.

CQ: When is the right time to build a prototype?

LO: It depends on your goals, and where you are on the development timeline. If you need a “proof-of-concept” model, a little clay and duct tape might be enough to tell you whether or not an idea is feasible. If you’re seeking late stage funding, a fully realized “looks-like, feels-like” prototype can be a great tool for gathering user data and market feedback.

CQ: What types of prototypes are there?

LO: There are several type of prototypes, including:

  • Proof-of-concept Model – a crudely formulated model (also known as the “Quick and Dirty”)
  • Form Model  - a prototype that “Looks Like” the end product; not interactive or functional
  • Functional Model – a prototype that “Works Like” the end product; used to prove usefulness
  • Interactive Functional Model – a computer-based interactive device, such as a diagnostic meter, a web-site, an app, etc.
  • Clinical-Use or Field-Use Model – a pre-production product that is ready to go into the field for human-interaction study and product use validation. (This models may be handy in regulatory testing for agencies such as UL, CE, FCC, TUV, FDA, FAA, etc.)


CQ: Describe a few of the preferred prototyping methods used by Priio?

LO: Some of Priio’s everyday methods for realizing mechanical components include:

  • 3D printed models from either a fused-deposition-modeling machine (FLM) or stereolithography assembly machine (SLA)
  • Urethane-foam models hand-shaped or milled on a CNC machine
  • Cast-urethane molded models


We often create electronic devices with software on board, so we’ve been known to hack up/bodge together manufacturer-supplied demonstration boards and sample softwares in order to get something working fast. We may also build and test a user interface for a hand-held instrument on a PC before before we even begin to create the instrument itself.

We find CAD simulation tools are also an effective way to prototype – we can simulate some circuits or “twist” a mechanical part in-silico (on the computer) before we ever create a “real” printed circuit board or mechanical component.

CQ: Describe Priio’s typical medical device client? What stage are they usually at?

LO: Our medical device clients range from startups to large experienced companies, with products ranging from invasive diagnostic instruments to pharma-storage environments used on aircraft.

In the case of startups, it’s generally early stage. Having proven some feasibility in the lab, a scientist, bio-engineer, etc. will now seek to commercialise the idea.

In the case of some of more experienced clients, they may already have market presence but are seeking to bring on something new or update a current product.

CQ: Priio develops products for multiple industries. What special circumstances and considerations that Priio must consider for medical device prototypes?

LO: The design process at Priio is generally the same regardless of market, although medical devices typically require extra documentation and due diligence. Occasionally other industries require levels of due diligence compatible with the FDA, such as those which manufacture devices that must intrinsically-safe, explosion-proof, or concerned with safety..

The FDA seems pretty consistent about safety and patient and end-user needs. They have established a “minimum code” (IEC-60601) to use when constructing a device or product, mechanically and electrically. This guidance code is usually required even at the prototype stage – because if the device is even potentially unsafe you cannot use it for collecting field-trial data.

CQ: What do you view is the biggest obstacle for medical device entrepreneurs / inventors?

LO: The biggest obstacle for nearly every entrepreneur is funding. With the current economic climate (particularly in Indiana) there seems to be much more late-stage than early stage funding available.

Medical device entrepreneurs have an added disadvantage of regulatory agency requirements (FDA 510K) that increase costs – easily doubling or tripling cost of development over other market segments.

CQ: When clients approach you, have they proven the science behind their ideas or do they expect Priio to do this work?

LO: Some of our clients would like us to help them prove their science, but for the most part they come with basics already established.

We do find, however, that re-proving the science is common. Once a concept is realized to commercial form, a validation process (usually a field study) is necessary. This is a good path because it uncovers any potential anomalies.

CQ: Do you have any medical device product development case studies you are able to share, including images?

LO: Therametric Technologies, Inc. (TTI) came to Priio asking for a wireless, battery powered, hand-held device which dentists could use to get diagnostic photographs of individual teeth.
Expediency was important for testing this product because the expense of dental research is often prohibitive to marketing innovations.  With this in mind, Priio devised an alternative: an ergonomic hand-held device which accomplished the required task but without wireless connectivity and battery operation, instead using USB as the power source and data connection to the analysis computer. The solution was cost effective and quick to develop and produce “looks like/works like” models that could be used for testing.

Medical Device Prototypes

I recently shared a video on YouTube about the importance of building the business case. Sometimes as part of this important step and certainly soon after, the need for a prototype becomes crucial. I know we have written quite a bit over the years on the topic of prototyping but didn’t realize how long it has been since we visited this important topic. Here are a few of the posts from the past on prototyping:

3 Ways to Ensure Design Project Success

What Come First: Design Input Requirements of Prototype?

Tips For Start-Ups (from Upstarts!)

Get Your Prototype in the Hands of Users ASAP

What if the Start-Up Has No Money?

Re-reading these posts reminded me that prototyping is VERY important to medical device product development. Over the next few weeks, we will be spending more time addressing this topic.

reBlog from inpact.org: Prototype Processes (from February meeting)

I found this fascinating quote today:

The February INpact presentation on “Prototype Processes” featured several INpact members and their prototyping capabilities: Catalyst PDG, Indesign, Gale Force Software, Online Resources, and Priio.inpact.org, Prototype Processes (from February meeting), Mar 2010

You should read the whole article.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

January 15, 2010 – Medical Device Prototype (INpact)

What: INpact Monthly Meeting
When: January 15, 2009 from 11:00 – 1:00
Where: Bingham-McHale (2700 Market Tower, 10 W. Market Street, Indy)
Register by January 13, 2009

During January’s meeting, our topic will focus on prototyping. Details are forthcoming.

Continue sharing INpact with others in the medical device community. If you know of entrepreneurs and early-stage medical device companies, invite them to attend.

If you are not a member but are interested, please submit an inquiry for the advisory board to review.

Not interested in being a member? You can still attend for the cost of $20.

Make checks out to INpact, Inc.

Mark you calendars for INpact events in 2010. Here are confirmed dates through June:

  • January 15
  • February 19
  • March 19
  • April 16
  • May 21
  • June 18
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Are You Ready for Unique Device Identification System (UID)?

Guest Post by:
Nicholas R. Lukianov, AVNET

September of 2007 the FDA Amendments act of 2007 was signed in to law. This legislation specified the establishment of a Unique Device Identification System, known as a ‘UID’. This system will require each device and sub-component to be labeled with a unique identifier capable of tracking the item throughout the supply chain and distribution channel by lot and serial number. Discussion is underway throughout the medical OEM community as to what will the actual implementation of an industry wide and enterprise level UID system look like. The FDA along with key healthcare industry partners and consortiums are analyzing how the implementation of such a system will address security and efficiency issues in the healthcare supply chain; to minimize medication errors, eliminate counterfeiting and effectively manage product recalls. The effort is focused on the development and adoption of an open global standard. February of 2009 a public workshop sponsored by the FDA addressed UID specifics; standards, placement and technology, database structure, implementation and adoption.

For many involved in the medical device product life cycle process from concept through end of life, it is critical to remain cognizant of the developments associated with the implementation of an industry wide UID standard. Numerous critical issues come to mind. What type of UID technology will be mandated? Will it be Class 1, Class 2, Class 3 specific? What will be the ability to withstand a variety of sterilization methodologies? What will be the compliance and certification requirements? Will devices, disposables, and pharmaceuticals share similar technology footprints or will specific product families require certain technologies albeit with a UID common denominator? How receptive will the supply chain be to the adoption of a UID system and the obvious cost issues involved? What will the end user requirements be, for example a local hospital or clinic. What are the enterprise level, domestic and global integration issues? Then there is the issue of reimbursement; who’s going to pay for it. And last but by no means least, what are the privacy issues?

Optimistically these are all daunting issues that will be resolved in the establishment of a mandate that will define an operational, efficient, and cost effective system. A similar program has been implemented by the DOD and has proved an effective deployment and usage model for the FDA in the development of a UID system for the medical device community.

Key technologies being considered for the implementation of the FDA mandated UID system are Bar codes, RFID, OCR and DPM (Direct Part Mark). RFID has a particularly unique capability in the fact that it is considered to be ‘intelligent’ based on it’s one-time and multiple programmability capability. A UID is already embedded during the manufacturing process in the RFID IC along with a number of security and data management features available that address cloning, multiple use, shelf life, patient / device data information and pre-loaded device parameters. Numerous applications and systems have benefited from the integration of a robust closed loop embedded and enterprise level systems based on the ISO15693 ‘vicinity read ’ 13.56MHz standard utilizing readily available passive RFID smart tag technology. Specific device manufacturing methodologies exist that withstand a variety of sterilization techniques. Packaging technology exists to facilitate post production / sterilization programming requirements. Custom inlays to fit specific form factors along with extensive adhesive and label conversion services accommodate a variety of solutions to provide a true ‘smart tag’ RFID solution. Avnet continues to work closely with our suppliers and value added service providers to assist the medical OEM with their unique RFID based medical device requirements throughout all the phases of the product lifecycle including the design, development, prototyping and production manufacturing.