Phd defence-pvalente


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Phd defence-pvalente

  1. 1. PhD Thesis Defence Pedro Valente ( The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller InstituteAdvisor: Kasper Hallenborg Co-Advisor: Luis Paulo ReisAssociate Professor Associate ProfessorThe Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute DSI/School of EngineeringUniversity of Southern Denmark University of Minho, Portugal 15/08/2012 1
  2. 2. Outline 3 What we Learned! 2 What we • Summary • Contribution Construct! • Future Work • Social Aspects: Intelligent 1 Request What we System Know today! • Danish Nursing homes •Elder Care + AAL + IntelliCare •Motivation + Objectives15/08/2012 2
  3. 3. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Ageing challenges Number of Elders vs. Fertility Rate vs. Work forceDemographic factors:Working age population (15-64 years) shrink: 5% by 204015% of Danes is 65+ (2007)Earlier retirement (60-64 years): 60% is retiredLife expectancy at birth (2010-2015): 81.4(females) 76.7(males)Social factors: Workforce/retired persons ratio will pass in next 30 years from 4:1 to 2:1 3.8% of population received personal and practical help (2007) Elderly: 80% live at home and 20% in nursing home Goal: Create non-institutional supportive living arrangements, with different levels of assistance Sources: The Long-Term Care System in Denmark, Schulz, E., 2010 Strategic Intelligence Monitor on Personal Health Systems phase 2 - Country Study Denmark, Nielsen, F. Claus et al., 201215/08/2012 3
  4. 4. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Ambient Assisted Living Empowered the development of ICT-based solutions for the process of ageing well at home, community and at work Earlier Age Older Age End-User Goals: • • Quality of life Autonomy ≈ • Social engagement User capabilities capabilities ICT • Skills and employability support Stakeholders Goals: Chronic • Reduce health costs and social care Conditions • Potentiate ICT R&D • Improve conditions for a shared European framework • Explore market segments, use cases and target groups Daily Life Social Activities Interaction • Address wishes and needs of end-users AAL JP Exploration fields: Topics • ICT integration problem – Fragmentation • ICT solutions replication • End-Users commitment to presented solutions Self-serve Mobility Society • Home Care vs. Institution Care • Care Staff support solutions source: 4
  5. 5. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!IntelliCare Project IntelliCare is a research project consortium supported by the Danish Ministry of Science, since 2008. • Different branches co-operating on several The consortium technological development projects consists of 12 partners • Cross-disciplinary research projects Partners • Develop technological solutions Purpose: • Create a common technological platform • citizen’s freedom/mobility • sharing of knowledge Focus: • information amongst the carers • scarce resourcesT1: IntelliCare platform T2: Monitoring of activities T3: Collaboration and• The objective is to build a middleware and modeling of behaviors coordination mechanisms platform, which will integrate the • To meet the individuality of the users. • Some appliances, but primarily aid and technologies and appliances of the care robots, need planning and care environment. coordination mechanisms, because they act autonomously in the care environment. source: 5
  6. 6. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Problem Formulation Able to work on high abstraction Context-aware Provide services to cope with level • User interaction with environment artefacts user profile and status along • User interaction among users (e.g. Staff (e.g. ADL activities) time and space and Residents) • Quality of care vs. quality of life • User interacts with the environment as a • Interfaces and interoperability between whole systems and appliances • Collaborative decision making • Services and devices need to behave autonomously • Quality-improvement processes Platform End-User15/08/2012 6
  7. 7. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Objectives Focus on activity context coordination Focus on activity coordination System platform view: End-user view: • Show pros/cons by using assistive • Identify System stakeholders technologies • Define orientations towards how System • Define System stakeholders participation services interact with end-users • View platform not only the sum of the parts, • Map users interactions, supported by user profile (Staff, Residents) but more than Individual Social aspects aspects15/08/2012 7
  8. 8. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned! Considerations • Layout ICT opportunities • Elderly + Care Staff • Activities PART 1 – WHAT WE KNOW TODAY! ...presents Danish nursing home environment with a close view from resident and care staff behaviours/testimonial, characterizing the person, activities and social relationships. ICT opportunities also highlighted!15/08/2012 8
  9. 9. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Layout considerations Residents are “A typical flat has one or accommodated in “Flats lead on to the two-rooms with small groups, and communal kitchen and bathroom and toilet in each one live in a two- dinning room” suite” room flat “Flat design privileged function and was “Residents are dominated by encouraged to decorate considerations of their flat, bathroom access and safety exception” issues” *Gurli-Vibeke nursing home map15/08/2012 9
  10. 10. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Elderly considerations Need to be more than “Elderly people had their “They are very 65 years old, and own standards in the emotional and sensitive suffer from mental or home, which they to everything” bodily impairment wanted to preserve” “They are in constant “Most of them have fear of falling, as they reduced motor abilities are unstable on their and limited senses” feet” *Copenhagen nursing home staff team organization example15/08/2012 10
  11. 11. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Care Staff considerations Nurses, a physician and Constituted by an a physiotherapist, “Each staff member has “The heavy workload highly interdisciplinary service and kitchen one or more residents to occurs at certain periods team of healthcare staff, volunteers, whom they are their of the day” professionals secretary, caretaker and contact persons” nursing home director “They expect from “Providing care to nursing residents that they also “Staff members don’t home residents is are understandable and spend much time talking physically demanding show empathy with their with elder persons” work” work” *Copenhagen nursing home staff team organization example15/08/2012 11
  12. 12. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Activities considerations Cleaning, providing medicine, delivering “Assistance call from the “Assistance call examples: laundry, help residents into Residents. (Random toilet, insufficient light, bed and with their toilet, occurrence)” object lost and thirstiness” providing meals - ADL activities “Nursing homes provides “Although activities are “For resident perspective, also special programs that target to individual, they are activities can be associated encompass a wide range of arranged in group” with meal schedule” activities and services”15/08/2012 12
  13. 13. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!ICT Opportunities Tracking is a Translate informal Institutions push Staff/Resident common concern knowledge to resident to: communication for staff care formal Maintain their active life, providing privacy Resident preferences and wishes Residents Ways to extend their capabilities Alarm buttons don’t provide Help new staff members to sufficient contextual information about call nature retain environment routines Transmit that they have a role in the environment. Assets Activities are prepared to fulfil Identify new Resident each individual, but are behaviour patterns organized to maximize social interactions *Information collected via interviews and observation at Kastanjehusene (Copenhagen) and Gurli-Vibeke nursing home (Odense)15/08/2012 13
  14. 14. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned! Request System System workflow Overview evaluation process • Architecture • Quality of Problem Solution • Sorting tasks • System A solution Service (QoS) Solution Ontology Experiment • Quality of Statement Design • Staff utility scenario Experience Overview function • Allocating tasks (QoE) • Task commitment PART 2 – WHAT WE CONSTRUCT! ... experiment conducted in a nursing home, representing a task request system. User interfaces were designed along with activity process workflow to guide requested tasks proposed by residents, to be delivered by care staff, optimizing resource allocation, via pre-established policies. Focus on design evaluation and user evaluation.15/08/2012 14
  15. 15. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Problem statement Assistance calls are a recurrent Issues with current assistance action in nursing homes daily systems: life. • Internal phones, alarm buttons or shouting • Between staff members and with residents are common methods for residents alert staff about their requests. • Alarm buttons - Their simple interface and design don’t provide contextual information regarding type of request • Each call is treated as an emergency! It is imperative for the residents Elderly people are the to receive a feedback from staff demographic group with less member, to acknowledge their skills for ICT request. • Search for devices compatible with their • Without feedback, residents will continue ICT comprehension to repeat same request action, jeopardizing social balance15/08/2012 15
  16. 16. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Solution Design User Experience within HCI • Improve User Quality of Experience(QoE) • User interface and device feedback aim for “natural” and “intuitive” interfaces, if compared with ordinary objects, i.e. TV remote control • Based on the work of Turkle et al.(2006), Savensted et al.(2006), about ICT impact on elderly inside institutions Action Process Workflow • Establish individual action plans, based on historical data, statistics user info and contextual data • Improve Quality of Service (QoS) • Based on Medina-Mora et al.(1992) business action- based workflow15/08/2012 16
  17. 17. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Request Workflow Process Proposal: • resident request Agreement: • mutual agreement on the condition of satisfaction Performance: • staff declares the action is complete Satisfaction: • resident declares action satisfactory Based on Action Workflow loop diagram, Medina-Mora et al. (1992)15/08/2012 17
  18. 18. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Sorting Tasks Resident use Staff Institution use System a 5 point members System locks scale priority 3 point scale personalize priority fine- priority – 1 Priority scale tuning, based High priority – 1 (High)Resident task level request (High) and 3 will height on on individual and 5 (Low): Utility priority task from (Low): gives Residents gives more function request, changing pragmatic Occurrences preferencebased on ICP expression selection15/08/2012 18
  19. 19. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Staff Utility FunctionUtility Function •Priority request level 1 search for – staff availability, proximity, as it as main role and higher number of occurrences15/08/2012 19
  20. 20. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Allocating tasks ManagerStaff member interface example: Proposal Message format:15/08/2012 20
  21. 21. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Task commitment Activity plan state diagram Staff member use desktop interface to assist him during task preparation Resident history ResidentInstitution Task Task resources Resident profile log about that preferences and procedures request impairments Reduce time to understand Resident wishes and preferences Can be used by newer Staff members Increase level of proximity between caregiver and care receiver15/08/2012 21
  22. 22. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Architecture Overview • Collect the request task from RFID agent Patient- • Prioritize it with current pending requests • Manage repetitive requests from patient Agent • Send the request to Manager Agent • Delivery feedback message to interface agent • Receive patient’s request • Choose best staff solution for each request Manager- • Manage system policies Agent • Organize auctions • Choose staff members to perform task • Send feedback to patient • Receive from manager agent, CFP for task Staff- • Send task request info to interface agent • Compute bid (max time to delivery) (Staff Agent member via interface agent) • Send bid to manager agent Based on previous experiment Agent based Architecture conduct during AAL Forum 2010 – Information Extraction • Schedule tasks to delivery System15/08/2012 22
  23. 23. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!System Ontology overview Logical information Physical informationRoom Position Activity• Represent a location in • Expresse coordinates • Represent an activity which a user can be which is used to define taking place can be present, or where the boundaries of areas describe via ADL or activities take place IADL classification Schedule User • Represent the overall • Represent users of time schedule for all Request System, with active request task and profile associated (ICP) formal activities15/08/2012 23
  24. 24. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!A solution ScenarioThe system is based on: Each resident will have Staff members with• RFID technology cards representing Resident put a specific best profile to execute request tag inside• RTLS indoor location requests plastic container task are inform, with message on Badge tag• Plug Computer • Pictures will represent the action• Touch-Screen Pc• Single-board computer Each staff member accepts/declines Staff member with request, providing shorter delivery time isEach resident will wear a Each Staff will wear a estimate time to assign to tasklocation tag location tag execute it.• Wristband tag • Badge tag with two-way communication Resident is inform Staff member delivery about who and When is request based on User delivery request. profile Kiosk (information RFID readers will be points) will be hidden inside plastic strategically installed oncontainer and be sorted Staff member report common areas for staff on system any change Staff close request inside apartments ticker. inquiry on that request15/08/2012 24
  25. 25. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Experiment Define 6 task Use two residents request Use two staff Both share same members nursing home floor 5 days experiment Observational • First 2 days: Assist Staff analysis based on • Last day: Interview staff • Resident behaviour and residents • Location • Required assistance15/08/2012 25
  26. 26. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!System evaluation - QoS QoS - Concerns about system service quality to maintain process workflow tide and conflict- conflict-free System flexible to be extended • Based on Agent-based architecture • Common ontology Location is a very important asset • Understand social relationships among end-users • Creates a temporal-spatial pattern Capable of DSS with user representation • Staff selection QoS defined by contract between: • Care Staff – Resident Expressed via task request • Staff task experience • Resident feedback •*Staff 1 wins CFP •30 second location frequency – 10 poses (5min) Request system coexist with others activities •Process efficiency relies on Staff reply capacity • Can interfere on task execution15/08/2012 26
  27. 27. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!System evaluation - QoE QoE - Concerns about end-user expectation and end- satisfaction against actions performed by the Request System Expected time vs. Real time/Task – Resident 1 Request system coexist with others activities • Can interfere on task execution Understanding behaviour from both end-users help establish quality metrics • Delay times vs. Resident satisfaction Request tasks are correlated and *Resident 1 uses request system as medication engaged simultaneous (i.e. reminder/confirmation [2p.m. – 3:30p.m.] 4 times miscall detected by staff. Medication and glass of water)15/08/2012 27
  28. 28. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!System evaluation – QoE(1) Updates are Tend to stabilize registered in trial- with time error based Task procedure update– Resident 1 Extend Staff Allow keep an perception updated activity towards resident report needs Can express: Resident feels •“What Resident intend” being taken in •“What they consideration have/receive” from all Staff members Resident Delivery time is satisfaction reduced increased15/08/2012 28
  29. 29. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Overview End-User Preferences Acceptance (user intention) (user expectation) Context situation Assistance (income) (outcome) Platform Proposed a solution to By structuring request Update standard task Induce Resource User interfaces and assist resident task process, staff reduce requests uncertainty regarding procedures towards optimization Interaction allowed Creating a request workflow between Resident Reduce user residents and Resident wishes Assets preferences adaptation curve staff members Keep pattern Resident Balance user activity history Staff (journaling) capabilities expectation15/08/2012 29
  30. 30. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned! Summary Contributions Future Work PART 4 – WHAT WE LEARNED! ... Reviews important issues discussed during the presentation, focusing on research contribution to Research and nursing home environments. A proposed platform component services are introduced as sum up of all work done, enhancing possibilities for the future, as a logical continuation of this work.15/08/2012 30
  31. 31. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Summary Residents and Care staff Intelligent assistive When assistive share same dynamic technologies are more technologies cannot environment •Mature balance user disabilities •Staff provides institutional services •Pervasive (blend with current home •Senior citizens move to a care •Staff provide assistance for common layout) institution tasks of daily-living •Normally all services are •Provide assistance services 24/7 •Resources are limited personalized to only one individual Contextual information Custom devices and ICT need to be represented in solutions need to be blend different granularities for with institutions ones (i.e. services cope with different Healthcare oriented) users/situations15/08/2012 31
  32. 32. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Contributions Contributions Limitations • Research work: • ICT solutions cannot be part of the • Context problem, but part of the solutions: • Environment • Understanding their role in care institution • Users • Cooperation with care staff • Relate several disciplines: • Cooperation with Service providers • Health care • Residents with irrational behaviours • Sociology (dementia) • Usability • Nursing home Privacy and bureaucracy • Interface design • Software engineering • IT • Provide a statement what end-users can expect from intelligent assistive solutions • Define contextual model considerations: • Technical • social • Define policies and process workflow for the request task • Contextualize Ambient Intelligent domain, from end- users perspective15/08/2012 32
  33. 33. Research What we What we What we definition Know! Construct! Learned!Future Work Assistive platform for multiple activities support with different types of - Components to explore inputs/outputs15/08/2012 33
  34. 34. Pedro Valente ( The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller InstituteAck.:The presented work has been conducted under (Download Presentation slides)IntelliCare project, which is supported by the Ministry ofScience, Technology and Innovation in Denmark 15/08/2012 34
  35. 35. Presentation Contents•1- PhD research definition •3 - Social aspects: intelligent request system • Overall Domain • Problem Statement •Ageing Challenges • Solution Design •AAL • Request workflow process •Intellicare •Sorting tasks • Problem Formulation •Staff utility function • Objectives •Allocating tasks•2 - Danish nursing homes •Task commitment • Considerations • System Overview •Layout •Architecture •Elderly •System Ontology •Care Staff • A solution scenario •Activities • Experiment • ICT opportunities • System evaluation •Quality of Service (QoS) •Quality of Experience (QoE) • Solution Overview •4 - Enclosures • Summary • Contributions • Future work15/08/2012 35
  36. 36. Parallel Publications Presentations Experiments ADDITIONAL MATERIAL (NOT PART OF PRESENTATION) PRESENTATION)15/08/2012 36
  37. 37. Publications15/08/2012 37
  38. 38. PresentationsConferences:PhD Advisory meetings:Others:15/08/2012 38
  39. 39. Parallel Experiments Research Website Videos – YouTube channel 39