5 ms·

Seems like it’s backward to me. The machine should be silent if everything is ok and start beeping if things are going wrong.

wnevets 8y ago
but what if the alarm isn't working when something is wrong?
- agumonkey 8y ago
  so same as train brakes in a way
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Trains slow down and use the engine at a slower pace. You don't have a back up heart.
    - agumonkey 8y ago
      their braking system is passive, no energy means error means brakes engaged; unlike, say, cars where no energy means .. nothing and any accident can occur.
      - paulie_a 8y ago
        How are cars relevant? I was specifically pointing out trains.
onion2k 8y ago
How would you tell the difference between a machine that's working and a machine that's been switched off?
- Myrth 8y ago
  Make it play a quiet calming music to the patients taste
cknoxrun 8y ago
This makes me think about data backups. It might make sense to only get a notification if a backup failed, but then how do you know the backup system is actually functioning at all?
- switch007 8y ago
  Regularly restoring from backup?
  - outadoc 8y ago
    You can't regularly restore a patient from death unfortunately
rifung 8y ago
That was my first thought too. However, the downside of that solution is that the failure signal relies on correctness of the machine. In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate.
- perlgeek 8y ago
  Monitoring over the network exists, and should be the preferred way to detect failure. > In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate. I can easily imagine software bugs that make the machine continue beeping even if the normal function doesn't work anymore. Somehow, this sounds like an excuse for lazy design.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    It sounds like an excuse for not networking at all really. Or upgrading equipment. Just a primitive cables to a data station on a cart outside the room would handle it better on every level than trying to figure out which thing isn't beeping when it should. Have it beep if it loses a signal. Better yet it can handle triaging far better when networked. Signal lost and "patient definetly not breathing" are two very different triage levels for one. You want to restore signal as soon as able but it isn't a mobilize a crash team to resuscitate situation. Nearly everything else has abandoned beeps as the sole indicator with good reason.
TH3R3LL1K 8y ago
I understand where you coming from. However, would the patient know if machine is functioning correctly if it is silent? What happens if it's not plugged in correctly?
gambiting 8y ago
I disagree. If the monitor crashes, then its failure state is the same as "everything ok" state.

wnevets 8y ago

but what if the alarm isn't working when something is wrong?

agumonkey 8y ago
so same as train brakes in a way
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Trains slow down and use the engine at a slower pace. You don't have a back up heart.
  - agumonkey 8y ago
    their braking system is passive, no energy means error means brakes engaged; unlike, say, cars where no energy means .. nothing and any accident can occur.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      How are cars relevant? I was specifically pointing out trains.

onion2k 8y ago

How would you tell the difference between a machine that's working and a machine that's been switched off?

Myrth 8y ago
Make it play a quiet calming music to the patients taste

cknoxrun 8y ago

This makes me think about data backups. It might make sense to only get a notification if a backup failed, but then how do you know the backup system is actually functioning at all?

switch007 8y ago
Regularly restoring from backup?
- outadoc 8y ago
  You can't regularly restore a patient from death unfortunately

rifung 8y ago

That was my first thought too. However, the downside of that solution is that the failure signal relies on correctness of the machine. In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate.

perlgeek 8y ago
Monitoring over the network exists, and should be the preferred way to detect failure. > In the current system, the failure signal is guaranteed to occur during failure with a zero false negative rate. I can easily imagine software bugs that make the machine continue beeping even if the normal function doesn't work anymore. Somehow, this sounds like an excuse for lazy design.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  It sounds like an excuse for not networking at all really. Or upgrading equipment. Just a primitive cables to a data station on a cart outside the room would handle it better on every level than trying to figure out which thing isn't beeping when it should. Have it beep if it loses a signal. Better yet it can handle triaging far better when networked. Signal lost and "patient definetly not breathing" are two very different triage levels for one. You want to restore signal as soon as able but it isn't a mobilize a crash team to resuscitate situation. Nearly everything else has abandoned beeps as the sole indicator with good reason.

TH3R3LL1K 8y ago

I understand where you coming from. However, would the patient know if machine is functioning correctly if it is silent? What happens if it's not plugged in correctly?

gambiting 8y ago

I disagree. If the monitor crashes, then its failure state is the same as "everything ok" state.