Dumb Design Decisions - Respironics

General Discussion on any topic relating to CPAP and/or Sleep Apnea.
User avatar
NightHawkeye
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Iowa - The Hawkeye State

Dumb Design Decisions - Respironics

Post by NightHawkeye » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:22 pm

What Were The Design Engineers Thinking?

After some discussions here this past week I was prompted to again try the BiPAP-Auto. The prospect of using a BiPAP to help minimize aerophagia while allowing me to increase my minimum pressure enough to prevent residual apneas was too tempting to resist. I'd had troubles with the BiPAP-Auto running away with pressure earlier, but since I'd also experienced that same problem with the Remstar-Auto and more less controlled it by minimizing leaks, it seemed likely that the same solution might work for the BiPAP-Auto as well.

Sure enough it did. With few leaks, my first night with the BiPAP-Auto again went well, and I had no instances of run-away pressure. The worst problem was with a couple of desaturations five minutes apart late in the night. These coincided with blank time in the Encore Pro data which can be seen a little past the 5th hour below:

Image
With a little experimenting I was able to duplicate what caused the blank time. When mouth breathing, the machine stops recording data. Now, if I'd had the machine set to auto-OFF, it would have turned OFF as well (as some users have reported their machines doing recently), however, since I did not have auto-OFF enabled the machine continued blowing air, and as soon as I started nasal breathing again the machine returned to normal operation. I spent an hour or so testing the machine yesterday and determined that this is the way it operates.

Thinking that this sequence of events left a little to be desired, I enabled the alarm function which I had previously disabled and went to bed last night feeling everything was going great for the second night with the BiPAP-Auto knowing that I wouldn't be able to hear the high-frequency alarm if I started to mouth-breathe, but confident that it would wake my wife, who would then probably punch me to shut the #$%& noise off.

One other thing I did was to increase the minimum pressure a tad on the theory that preventing an apnea was better than allowing one to occur which might trigger mouth breathing. Anyway, last night, there were no unexplained blank sequences in the Encore Pro data which can be seen below. There was a large leak, but that was not mouth breathing. I caught that at the time and it was caused by my CL2 nasal pillow shifting on one side.
Image
Just for the sake of completeness I'll mention that the oximeter data looked good too, except for a couple of minor desats which coincide with the two recorded apneas which occurred just prior to the third hour in the Encore Pro data. The machine had reached the upper limit of 12 cm at that time and so couldn't respond to those particular apneas.

Finally to the Point!
Apologies for the length, but I couldn't make the point without providing the background info.

Bad Design Decisions:
1.) Alarm tone at such a high frequency that many typical middle age men with high frequency hearing loss can't hear it. What sense does that make? Who is the typical apnea customer, anyway - the same middle age men, many of whom have high frequency hearing loss. Did Respironics bother to get feedback from any of their customers?
2.) Alarm enabled, automatically turns machine OFF. No kidding! I couldn't believe it. Even though I had Auto-OFF disabled, as soon as I turned the alarm ON, the machine automatically enabled the auto-OFF. This may seem like a minor point, but consider the effect it would have if you used a mask which didn't trigger auto-ON (and many here have recently attested to using such masks). Once you started mouth breathing, the machine would leave you not only without CPAP for the rest of the night, but you'd have an excess of CO2 for the rest of the night as well. Now, if you had good hearing, the alarm would wake you, but not if your hearing is at all like mine. (I simply can't hear the alarm at all!)

To further make the point that the machine manufacturers are not listening to the users of the equipment, I'll point out a couple of bad design decisions involving the CL2 mask which I am just now evaluating also.
1) No way to snug nasal pillows up against base of nose. Sure, you can get it as tight as you want at the tip of the nose, but as soon as you do the nose tip just acts as a pivot point and the mask loosens even more at the base.
2.) The pillows design of the CL2 has the pillows bellows essentially horizontal from the center of the nose to the side edges. C'mon now, most noses tilt up toward the edges. The Swift design builds in about a 30 degree angle.
3.) There is NO way to clean the CL2 nasal pillows. I repeat, there is no way to clean these pillows. Sure, you can wash the outside all you want, but you can't get inside to clean it out. C'mon now, where do the designers think excess snot is going to go, if not down into the inside of the pillows chamber. About all I can see doing is running some water through the assembly and then blowing air through it to dry it off so that mold and mildew don't take hold inside of it.

My apologies for offending any Respironics fans, but these are just what I've observed in the past two nights while checking out the BiPAP-Auto and the CL2. If I'd used other manufacturer's stuff I'd be blunt about it too.

Regards,
Bill


User avatar
Amigo
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:05 am
Location: NH

RE: Dumb Design Decisions - Respironics

Post by Amigo » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:50 pm

Very enlightening post, Bill. Your efforts in both regards (the machine and interface) will help many people to make more informed decisions about their equipment.

I certainly agree, though...what can the Respironics engineers have been thinking!


User avatar
dsm
Posts: 6996
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:53 am
Location: Near the coast.

Post by dsm » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:20 pm

Bill,

I commend your investigative efforts. This type of investigation could prove very helpful and could be the basis for us to form a Respironics users group (with the support of Respironics), where we could discuss with them issue we feel may need addressing.

I am totally for a win-win pro-active approach to addressing issues we feel are problematic. I am building up data & example tests re the early IPAP to EPAP flip I am seeing in my Respironics Bipaps.

I am also very aware that the design engineers may well have valid reasons for some of their designs. It would be great to have the opportunity to discuss these with them.

Because so much of the detail is in the software algorithms I believe those of us with both engineering & software backgrounds, can provide helpful and intelligent feedback to companies like Respironics.

Perhaps we could form a global consumer group for xPAP users ?

Anyone else with any thoughts on this

If yes please PM me.

Bill, you may have started something here

Cheers

DSM

xPAP and Quattro std mask (plus a pad-a-cheek anti-leak strap)

User avatar
NightHawkeye
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Iowa - The Hawkeye State

Post by NightHawkeye » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:48 pm

DSM, if you've got the time and a way to move these and numerous similar items forward to the manufacturer, I think that could be incredibly beneficial to current and future apnea sufferers. Especially in regards to the masks, where ResMed has cleaned their clock for a long time, I have to think that anybody in a position of responsibility at Respironics with half a brain would be grateful for detailed feedback, especially if it's crafted in a manner useful to their design teams.

With thirty years of design experience myself, I'm continually amazed at the really dumb choices designers make in all sorts of things. Part of my problem is that years ago I was taught by engineers older and wiser than myself to always be the "user's advocate". That's where I see the problem with the Respironics equipment. It appears to me that the designers were designing for their immediate customers - physicians and DME's - not the actual users. Their customers, the physicians and DME's, it seems know precious little of what their own customers, the end users (i.e., us) really need or want. In other words, I think the real problem is that feedback is coming only from the middlemen in this endeavor, not from folks like us who actually use the equipment.
dsm wrote:I am totally for a win-win pro-active approach to addressing issues we feel are problematic. I am building up data & example tests re the early IPAP to EPAP flip I am seeing in my Respironics Bipaps.
I'll add here that from my own recent experience, it appears this is tied in with the leak compensation algorithm, because when I have the leaks controlled and stable, then the problem with flipping goes away, and also the problem with uncontrolled pressure increases is eliminated as well. I first figured out how to tame the uncontrolled pressure increase problem with the the Remstar-auto and then found in the past two days that it applies to the BiPAP-Auto as well. My guess would be that both use the same basic leak compensation mechanism.
dsm wrote:Because so much of the detail is in the software algorithms I believe those of us with both engineering & software backgrounds, can provide helpful and intelligent feedback to companies like Respironics.
Indeed, assuming somebody at Respironics has a receptive ear. I am reminded of the old adage about being able to lead a horse to water, but not being able to make it drink.
dsm wrote:Perhaps we could form a global consumer group for xPAP users ?
Seems like a great idea from my perspective, DSM. Given all the problems which surface on this forum, I have to think there is more than ample feedback available. It would, however, take somebody to condense the info down and "spoon feed" it to the manufacturer in small enough chunks for them to be able to process the information, and make use of it in their designs.

Regards,
Bill (hoping that others will step forward with additional feedback)

Last edited by NightHawkeye on Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Roger...
Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Post by Roger... » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:59 pm

It would be hard to disagree with the conclusions in this thread.

DSM, if there were a way to have better access to the manufacturer, I think that would be a great idea so we can at a minimum stop thinking they design these things for people on the 5th of Saturn.
Roger...

User avatar
dsm
Posts: 6996
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:53 am
Location: Near the coast.

Post by dsm » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:16 pm

I am willing to write out a set of objectives for a consumer organisation.

My 1st thought is that there are issues we would like to take up with all manufacturers

The ones that come to mind based on issues I would like to take up include :-
Resmed, Fisher & Paykel, Respironics

If we created a blanket consumer org, I would suggest it has sub-groups that at this point in time I would call Manufacturer User Groups, i.e. The Respironics Users Group.

My interest would be to seek a supportive relationship with the manufacturers and to seek benefit in both directions. By this I mean that the org would not just be a vechicle for the disgruntled wanting to hit out at a particular manufacturer over a perceived one off dud machine they may have been given but a vehicle for mutual cooperation with the manufacturers. For example, if a particular mfg approached the group to evaluate a new mask or machine, that it would have a pool of people recognised as objective, who could take on such tasks & provide feedback, even sign non-disclosure agreements (for what they are worth). The reciprocal would be this org feeding back issues that have been investigated by members and the issue endorsed as one the org would like resolved.

I could understand some mfg's being very wary of engaging with consuer orgs, but they really owe it to their customers to be willing to deal with user groups.

In the past it may have been the health professionals who sought influence with the mfgs, now seems the right time for consumers to have a say.

What other thoughts do other's have ?.

Cheers

DSM

_________________

CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition): respironics, resmed

xPAP and Quattro std mask (plus a pad-a-cheek anti-leak strap)

User avatar
NightHawkeye
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Iowa - The Hawkeye State

Post by NightHawkeye » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:37 pm

DSM, it might be good to focus in on exactly the purpose of such an organization. You earlier said:
dsm wrote:This type of investigation could prove very helpful and could be the basis for us to form a Respironics users group (with the support of Respironics), where we could discuss with them issue we feel may need addressing.
But, then you later said:
dsm wrote:If we created a blanket consumer org, I would suggest it has sub-groups that at this point in time I would call Manufacturer User Groups, i.e. The Respironics Users Group.
I'm not smart enough to know what the best approach might be. For instance, if it were a Respironics only consumers group then that might make discussions with Respironics easier. It also might make it easier to grow the organization, and perhaps branch out later. On the other hand, maybe there's immediate benefit to an umbrella organization as well.

It seems like the first choice is deciding which of these two types of organizations is more likely to be successful.

Regards,
Bill


User avatar
dsm
Posts: 6996
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:53 am
Location: Near the coast.

Post by dsm » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:57 pm

Bill,

I guess I put the big org up as a way of soothing anyone who might have erroneously though that the only focus was honing in on Respironics.

I can see some immediate issues here that relate to Respironics products and certainly my immediate goal is to resolve them first.

If I could state in the simplest terms what I would love to achieve as 1 objective *for myself*, it would be that myself (and/or some of us with the interest) could help Respironics resolve the Bipap early flipping problem.

Having paid 1000s for my BiPap S/T machine, I hate seeing it sitting on a shelf languishing because I can't get it to work with my personal (and to me, reasonable) configuration of mask & breathing patterns.

I am certain that smart minds at places like respironics, would like to get constructive feedback that helps them improve their products. I know they do their own research & testing but there is nothing better than intelligent feedback from real live users.

Forming a Respironics User's group with clearly defined goals strikes me as a good start. I have some ideas on going about it. As with any org seeking to influence another org, it is the quality and support of a good membership that will make a difference.

Hope this helps refine the thinking.

DSM

_________________

CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition): respironics, bipap

_________________

CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition): respironics, bipap

Last edited by dsm on Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
xPAP and Quattro std mask (plus a pad-a-cheek anti-leak strap)

Guest

Re: RE: Dumb Design Decisions - Respironics

Post by Guest » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:46 pm

[quote="Amigo"]Very enlightening post, Bill. Your efforts in both regards (the machine and interface) will help many people to make more informed decisions about their equipment.

I certainly agree, though...what can the Respironics engineers have been thinking!


User avatar
NightHawkeye
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Iowa - The Hawkeye State

Re: RE: Dumb Design Decisions - Respironics

Post by NightHawkeye » Sun Apr 23, 2006 7:59 pm

Goofproof wrote: . . . but with the unit on wouldn't that keep the inside of the interface clean?
Most of the time, sure. I'm pretty sure that there are other times though . . .
Goofproof wrote:Although if it is needed with the CL 2, Those WaterPik type things would be great.
That's a good suggestion, Jim. The WaterPik doesn't really move much water but it does concentrate it in a small area. It could certainly be used to clean out any specific visible areas as the probe is small enough to get inside the pillows chamber.

Regards,
Bill


Yoga
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Virginia

Post by Yoga » Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:12 pm

DSM,

Your idea of interacting with the manufacturers is an excellent one - if they will listen. If they were really interested, they would monitor this site. Wonder if they do.

Of the three most widely used full face interfaces, Respironics comes in third and last with its Comfort Full 2. The mask is difficult to get on and off because the part of the headgear that counts is not stretchable. It also leaks.

In my experience, the people who design the equipment are the hardest to get in touch with.


~AP
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:07 am
Location: California

Post by ~AP » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:43 am

Excellent post! Most enlightening. You have done us readers a great service by sharing this information. After all this investigative study and analysis, I would thing the manufacturers would welcome a collaborative effort to gain insight into their own product's user-friendliness.

I love the idea of forming user groups to relay data - only if they buy into this idea and actually listen. I can't imagine why they wouldn't. I think it's a win-win effort. Regardless, the data is very important to those of us who use it and we benefit from it.

Thank you very much for sharing your information, ideas, and discussion. You are helping me flatten my learning curve.
Thank you,

~A

User avatar
NightHawkeye
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Iowa - The Hawkeye State

Post by NightHawkeye » Mon Apr 24, 2006 8:05 pm

I verified this evening that the Heated Humidifier operation can be added to the list here of dumb design decisions. After reading multiple posts in the following thread I decided to perform my own tests:
viewtopic.php?t=8692

It seems that I'm not the only one who has had a problem finding the heated humidifier turned OFF in the morning, although certain it had been turned ON the last time the machine was turned ON.

Regards,
Bill


User avatar
Ric
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Left Coast

Post by Ric » Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:54 pm

Bill,

Since you are keeping a list, you can add the (bug/feature/design error) that has been discussed in a previous thread (Oh where oh where have my lost hours gone?) Namely the "missing time" issue with the Remstar AUTO that doesn't seem to be a problem with other models of the Respironics line. Briefly, it takes 10 minutes after you turn the machine "ON" before the clock starts accumulating time toward the compliance value. If this is a new "feature", then I would label it an authentic "Dumb Design Decision" (DDD). If it's only a "programming bug", then it goes in the DPD category. Either way, the engineers at Respironics should want to know about it.

A second issue is the choice of the dumb "SmartCard", which I rambled on about under the "M-series call for questions" thread at the top of the stickies. I won't belabor that here, except to mention that I consider that a genuine DDD.

Thanks for raising the issue, and (at least contemplating) beating a path to their door. I think it would be good business for them to keep a radar tuned to the grass-roots user community. Come to think of it, they probably lurk here and we don't know it. In which case the door path has already been beaten.


User avatar
NightHawkeye
Posts: 2431
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Iowa - The Hawkeye State

Post by NightHawkeye » Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:02 pm

Ric wrote:Thanks for raising the issue, and (at least contemplating) beating a path to their door.
For the record though, the originator of the idea for the Respironics users group is DSM, not me. I think it's a great idea though, and fully support it.

Regards,
Bill