9A- Testing the Opportunity Hypothesis

Who:

I interviewed two nurses who thought this technology was a great idea. They explained since they’ve been doing this for years, they have a relatively high success rate.  There’s always that one patient whose veins are difficult to find. They would use this tool if it was available to them.

I interviewed a primary care physician who offers lab services in his office. While he wouldn’t use the tool directly, he would consider purchasing it for his office to give patients a better experience. Whatever he can do to calm patients feel of needles is a plus to him.  

I interviewed two EMTs. They agreed this would be a great tool to have since they usually see people in critical condition. It would make their lives easier when having to administer immediate care.

What:

The need I presented was a more efficient way to administer IVs and perform blood work on all patients. This need stems from the pain and unease of patients being stuck multiple times by needles to conduct testing or administer medication. The alternative to this technology would be continuous practice by service providers.

Why:

There could be outliers for this need. These outliers would be providers who don’t provide these services.

Inside the Boundary	Outside the Boundary
Who is in: Labs such as Quest, & Labcorp Phlebotomist, Nurses, Emergency Medial Services	Who is excluded: Doctors who don’t offer these services in house.
What is Needed: An easier way to administer tests and medications though needles and IVs.	What the need not: The need is not to replace training and manual blood service. Providers must still learn the current method in the event the new solution isn’t available.
Why does this need exist: Humans make mistakes. More often than not when giving blood or getting an IV you will be stuck more than once because the provider is having a hard time with the veins.	Alternative: The alternative would be continuing to use current methods to pull blood or administer IVs.