Hospital Bed Brake and Elevation Control Mechanism

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current hospital beds face challenges such as inconvenient and unsafe foot brake systems, slow movement mechanisms, complex emergency overrides, limited speed adjustments, and issues with side rail stability and power management, which hinder efficient patient care and bed operation.

Innovation Solution

The design incorporates a braking system with a central levering mechanism and override pedal for easy access, a motor-driven elevation system for rapid position changes, and a control system with load cells and sensors for precise control and safety features like automatic brake control and side rail stabilization.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If foot brakes are located on the side under the bed, then braking function is provided, but user accessibility and safety are reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebrake accessibilityVSAvoidsafety hazards
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The brake control interface is relocated from the traditional side-under-bed location to the foot end of the bed, changing the spatial dimension of access. This allows users to operate brakes from a safe, visible position without needing to reach under the bed frame.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Solution Approach 2:

A foot-operated brake control mechanism serves as an intermediary between the user's foot and the braking system. This mediator allows brake activation without hand contact, enabling operation while maintaining hand-free safety and improving accessibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Extent of automation

If motor-driven mechanism is used for Fowler section movement, then automated control is achieved, but emergency speed is insufficient

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveFowler section controlVSAvoidemergency positioning speed
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically switches between two operational modes: normal automated motor-driven control for routine adjustments, and emergency manual override mode for rapid positioning. This dynamic adaptability allows the system to optimize performance based on situational requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The emergency release mechanism is pre-positioned and pre-configured at the foot end of the bed, allowing immediate activation without requiring complex assembly or setup during emergencies. The mechanism is ready for instant deployment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Adaptability or versatility

If manual crank and gearing system is used, then mechanical adjustment capability is provided, but physical effort required is excessive

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebed height adjustmentVSAvoidphysical effort
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSForce

Solution Approach 1:

The manual crank and gearing system is replaced with a motor-driven elevation mechanism. This substitution eliminates the need for manual cranking while maintaining the mechanical adjustment capability, significantly reducing the physical effort required to adjust bed height.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Force

If hydraulic piston cylinders are used for elevation, then lifting capability is achieved, but system complexity and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveelevation forceVSAvoidelevation system complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ForceVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Hydraulic piston cylinders are replaced with a motor-driven elevation system. This substitution maintains the necessary lifting capability while significantly reducing system complexity, eliminating hydraulic fluid requirements, and removing associated maintenance concerns.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

5Strength

If side rails are designed with support arms, then structural support is provided, but pinch points and oscillations are created

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveside rail supportVSAvoidpinch points and oscillations
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The problematic support arms that create pinch points are removed from the side rail design. The side rails are reengineered to provide structural support through alternative means that eliminate the harmful oscillating motion and pinch point hazards while maintaining necessary strength.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Data Source

PatentEP3127522B1Hospital bed
Publication Date: 2019.06.19 STRYKER CORP
  • EP3127522B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3127522B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3127522B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A patient bed (100) includes a patient support, a base (200), said patient support mounted relative to said base, said base having a plurality of bearing members (202) for moving said base and said patient support across a surface, each of said bearing members including a brake operatively associated therewith. The patient bed further includes an electrical control system (1000), said electrical control system having a user actuatable device and being configured to actuate one or more of said brakes upon actuation of said user actuatable device.