Advertisement

Redesign and Ergonomic Analysis of Scoop Stretcher for Full Body Immobilization During Casualties

  • Mohammed Rajik Khan
  • Preeti Giri
  • Pavan Kumar Palarapu
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 34)

Abstract

In the context of pre-hospital care, incapacitated persons need to be transferred from places of casualties with proper precautionary measures. Immobilization of body especially spine, is of prime concern during transfer of patients for averting further consequences. The aim of this research work is to redesign the existing scoop stretcher for full body immobilization during casualty transfer. An attempt has been made to provide head, vertebral column and pelvis immobilization and to provide comfort to both the patient as well as the person carrying the stretcher. The proposed design is simulated and analyzed for ergonomic consideration in a virtual CAD environment. The designed scoop stretcher overcomes the loop holes in the existing one in terms of comfort, usability and motion restriction. For physical visualization and design verification, a prototype has been fabricated. The intuitive design may bring a radical change in providing pre-hospital services.

Keywords

Pre-hospital care Scoop stretcher Full body immobilization Human factors 

References

  1. 1.
    Lopes, A.C., Pires, G., Nunes, U.: Assisted navigation for a brain-actuated intelligent wheelchair. Robot. Auton. Syst. 61, 245–258 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peixoto, N., Nik, H.G., Charkhkar, H.: Voice controlled wheelchairs: fine control by humming. Comput. Meth. Programs Biomed. 112, 156–165 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hsiang, S.M., Brogmus, G.E., Courtney, T.K.: Low back pain (LBP) and lifting technique—a review. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 19, 59–74 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Misra, U.K., Kalita, J.: Motor evoked potential is useful for monitoring the effect of collar therapy in cervical spondylitic myelopathy. J. Neurol. Sci. 154, 222–228 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heacock, H., Seeleya, N.P., Tokunoa, C., Frederkinga, S., Brian, K., Mattieb, J., Kanigana, R., Watzke, J.: Development and evaluation of an affordable lift device to reduce musculo-skeletal injuries among home support workers. Appl. Ergon. 35, 393–399 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bon, C.L., Forrester, C.: An ergonomic evaluation of a patient handling device: the elevate and transfer vehicle. Appl. Ergon. 28, 365–374 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cooper, G., Ghassemieh, E.: Risk assessment of patient handling with ambulance stretcher systems (ramp/winch, easy-loader, tail-lift) using biomechanical failure criteria. Med. Eng. Phys. 29, 775–787 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shelton, F., Wright, J.: Conducting and interpreting interface pressure evaluations of clinical support surfaces. Geriatric Nur. 24, 222–227 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krell, J.M., McCoy, M.S., Patrick, J.S., Fisher, G.L., Stoy, W.A., Hostler, D.P.: Comparison of ferno scoop stretcher with long back board for spinal immobilization. PreHospital Emerg. Care 10, 46–51 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chakrabarti, D.C.: Indian anthropometric dimensions for ergonomic design practice. National Institute of Design (1997)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gocmen-Mas, N., Karabekir, H., Ertekin, T., Edizer, M., Canan, Y., Duyar, I.: Evaluation of lumbar vertebral body and disc: a stereological morphometric study. Int. J. Morphol. 28(3), 841–847 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Timoshenko, S., Young, D.H.: Engineering Mechanics. Schaum Outline Series, International Second Revised edition (1964)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammed Rajik Khan
    • 1
  • Preeti Giri
    • 1
  • Pavan Kumar Palarapu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignNational Institute of TechnologyRourkelaIndia

Personalised recommendations