Peer Feed Back

Your case study focuses on an elderly Italian Canadian man, how would NavigateBot work differently for someone with a visual impairment, hearing loss or utilizing mobility devices such as a wheelchair?

            This question was designed to probe beyond basic functionality of the navigation system and examine how inclusive design principles could be incorporated into the technology. Accessibility considerations are crucial for any assistive technology, particularly in healthcare settings where users may have diverse physical limitations and safety needs.

Response

Sharon’s answer was impressive. She did not give me a surface-level response, she actually broke down three specific capabilities: voice recognition technology, environmental and patient cue sensitivity, and multiple language abilities. What I liked most about Sharon’s response was that she connected these features to real outcomes rather than just rattling off technical specs.

When Sharon spoke about voice recognition, I could see she understood how crucial this would be for visually impaired patients. The environmental sensitivity part showed she had thought about mobility challenges too. What really caught my attention was her mention of multiple language capabilities which showed she understood that accessibility is not just about physical disabilities but also about communication barriers. I found this to be quite sophisticated thinking for someone who is not a nurse.

Sharon’s thorough answer exceeded my expectations and demonstrated that my question successfully provoked critical thinking about inclusive design. She moved beyond basic navigation concepts to consider how different disabilities create unique interaction needs with technology. Her response showed she had genuinely considered the human impact of her proposed solution, connecting assistive technology to patient dignity and independence.

The exchange generated a robust discussion about how we as nurses can take navigating a hospital setting for granted.  Sharon’s thoughtful engagement with accessibility concerns demonstrated both technical understanding and empathy for users with different abilities

Sharon’s pre-recorded video was well done. You could tell she put effort into making her presentation look professional and polished. Her NavigateBot concept struck me as a simple but smart invention and sometimes the best ideas are not the most complicated ones. What came through clearly was that she genuinely cares about helping patients, which made her whole idea feel authentic rather than just academic.

I was impressed by how she thought beyond just “getting people from A to B” to actually consider what patients need in healthcare settings. For someone without a healthcare background, she showed real insight into practical challenges. The video format worked well because she could present her ideas without worrying about nerves or time constraints, and her information came across clearly. Plus, she incorporated Mentimeter polling which encouraged audience engagement and participation.

While Sharon’s video presentation was generally well-executed, there were some limitations in how the NavigateBot concept was presented. The pre-recorded format, while polished, did not allow for real-time interaction with the audience during the main presentation, which might have enhanced engagement. The technical implementation details of the NavigateBot were somewhat limited in the video, leaving questions about how the various accessibility features could function in practice.

There is room for Sharon to take this concept even further. For future presentations, maybe Sharon could try mixing recorded content with live segments. She could keep the polished video parts but build in more real-time interaction beyond just the Mentimeter polls.

For the NavigateBot itself, I would love to see Sharon get more specific about how everything would actually works. She could create some realistic scenarios such as following a wheelchair user through the hospital or showing how a blind patient would interact with the voice system step by step.  For deaf patients, perhaps Sharon could speak to visual alerts or vibrating notifications? These specifics would make her concept even stronger.

Lasty, addressing practical implementation concerns such as cost-effectiveness, integration with existing healthcare systems, staff training requirements, and maintenance needs would demonstrate comprehensive planning. However overall Sharon’s idea and presentation were exceptional and I enjoyed them very much!

Well Done Sharon!!