Hospital Bed Control and Brake Layout for Emergency Repositioning

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, limited speed adjustments, and issues with side rail stability and power supply reliability, which hinder efficient patient care and emergency responses.

Innovation Solution

A patient support apparatus with a deck, movable side rails, a bed exit detection system, a control panel, and a controller that monitors conditions and adjusts illumination to indicate status changes, along with a system for variable speed actuation and remote power supply integration to enhance safety and operational efficiency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Ease of operation

If foot brakes are located under the bed as in prior art, then the braking mechanism can be integrated into the bed structure, but the user must hold on to the bed, balance on one foot and stretch the other foot under the bed to engage or disengage the brake, reducing visibility and safety

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebrake engagement convenienceVSAvoiduser safety
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The brake control is moved from a horizontal position under the bed to a vertical position on the side rail, allowing the user to operate the brake with their hand in a natural gripping motion rather than stretching their foot under the bed. This dimensional change in control location fundamentally improves both ease of operation and user safety.

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

Solution Approach 2:

A cable or linkage mechanism serves as an intermediary to transmit the braking force from the hand-operated control on the side rail to the brake mechanism located under the bed. This allows the user to operate the brake from a convenient location while still engaging the actual braking mechanism where it is most effective.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If the bed uses manual or motor-driven mechanisms to raise and lower the Fowler section, then the bed can be adjusted to various positions, but the movement speed is too slow for emergency situations such as CPR or Trendelenburg positioning

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvebed position adjustabilityVSAvoidFowler section movement speed
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSSpeed

Solution Approach 1:

The system provides dynamic speed control for the Fowler section, allowing it to operate at normal slow speeds during routine adjustments and at high speeds during emergency situations. The emergency release mechanism enables rapid movement by bypassing the motor-driven mechanism when quick repositioning is needed for CPR or Trendelenburg positioning.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the operational parameters of the Fowler section based on the situation: during normal operation, the motor-driven mechanism provides controlled slow movement for patient comfort, while during emergencies, the emergency release mechanism changes the parameter to high-speed manual operation for rapid repositioning.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Speed

If emergency release mechanisms are designed to quickly disengage the Fowler section from the drive mechanism, then rapid movement is enabled for CPR or Trendelenburg, but the arrangements become complex, bulky, expensive and difficult to engage and disengage

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveemergency repositioning speedVSAvoidemergency release mechanism complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The emergency release mechanism is segmented into simple, discrete components that can be easily engaged and disengaged. Rather than a complex integrated system, the release mechanism is divided into separate functional elements that reduce overall complexity while maintaining the ability to quickly reposition the Fowler section during emergencies.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

4Device complexity

If the bed uses a single power source, then the system is simple, but power failures can leave the bed in an unsafe position without backup power for critical functions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepower supply system complexityVSAvoidpower availability for safety functions
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The power system is designed with multi-functionality, incorporating both a main power source for normal operation and a backup power source for critical safety functions. This universal power architecture ensures that essential functions such as braking and emergency releases remain operational even when the main power fails, enhancing overall system reliability without excessive complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS20110277242A1Hospital bed
Publication Date: 2011.11.17 STRYKER CORP
  • US20110277242A1 patent drawing
  • US20110277242A1 patent drawing
  • US20110277242A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A patient support apparatus includes a deck, a plurality of side rails, a control panel, and a plurality of subsystems, such as a bed exit system that detects when a patient may exit from the support apparatus, or a lifting mechanism to raise and lower the deck. A controller is in communication with the control panel and is adapted to monitor conditions regarding the side rails and/or the other subsystems. At least one lamp is also provided on the patient support apparatus that is adapted to be illuminated in a first manner when a plurality of monitored conditions remain in a desired state, and in a second manner when at least one of the plurality of monitored conditions changes to an undesired state.