1. The question you asked after the presentation and how did you feel it was answered (3%).
Quality of the question (provoke critical thinking and generate productive discussion): 10 marks
Question
Could Care-cuddle function autonomously or be paired with a companion app that enables real-time caregiver interaction or emergency alerts, and what strengths and challenges would such an approach involve?
Quality
Sophie addressed all aspects of the questions with remarkable transparency. I truly appreciated her honesty in her responses, particularly given the sensitivity of the topic, which could have felt intimidating considering the expertise level of the audience. Her answers sparked critical thinking and encouraged further discussion within the class, bringing forth intriguing insights, especially from those with advanced experience in the relevant population. Additionally, her presentation offered valuable information and reflections on personal journeys related to the topic.
How did you feel it was answered: 10 marks
The topic was both innovative and unique. Reflecting on my own experiences as a mother, I found the idea of accessing a care-cuddle feature through an app particularly intriguing. Sophie’s response examined various aspects of the concept, considering a diverse patient population, and it effectively highlighted the potential benefits and challenges associated with the questions raised. Her detailed exploration of these points encouraged further discussion among us. I really appreciated how we discovered that many of us share similar experiences or backgrounds, and sometimes it just takes an innovative idea to inspire change and make the world a better place. The care-cuddle or neo-cuddle concept has the potential to shift the status quo and alleviate some of the stressors faced by younger populations.
2. Feedback (7%)
Successes: What went well? 10 marks
The speaker showed confidence and honesty while discussing the topic, presenting the information in a respectful and informative manner. This approach encouraged critical thinking, positive engagement, and productive discussions among the audience. For example, a peer with a background in the neonatal unit shared their valuable perspective. Additionally, a quick Google search provided more context around the innovation itself. The concept of a scent-capturing pad was especially innovative, considering how crucial the bond between caregivers and babies is. Overall, both the topic and the discussion surrounding the posed questions were very successful.
Challenges: What didn’t go so well? 10 marks
While the question was answered thoroughly, the sensitive nature of the population and topic could pose feasibility issues with the proposed innovation. Concerns about unfamiliarity and uncertainty surrounding technology in vulnerable populations might create ethical dilemmas and implementation challenges. The speaker addressed struggles with ethics in generating images through AI, highlighting that, despite the innovation, there may be significant hurdles during the development stages. Collaborating with a multi-disciplinary team, including family, friends, or caregivers, could be beneficial in tackling these associated issues. Although the speaker provided great detail about her Google search, it would have been helpful to include in-text references for better audience accessibility to research. A bit more context in the Google search results could have also enhanced understanding and provided the audience with more information. Given the challenges surrounding sensitivity and vulnerable populations, it’s understandable that there may be reluctance to adopt new technological innovations.
Opportunities for Growth: What can be done to improve? (provide clear and feasible suggestions for improvement) 30 marks
There’s definitely room for improvement in the technology aspect, particularly through collaboration among various disciplines. It’s fascinating to see how perspectives can vary based on unique backgrounds; for example, I may view the innovation and related issues differently compared to my peers. Co-developing the solution with input from various fields could significantly refine the innovation.
The speaker proposed creating an app for older children rather than focusing solely on neonates, suggesting that this approach could provide caregivers with manageable, real-time data, which may cause less distress than alerts for infants. This shift in focus seems likely to be less stressful for caregivers. Despite the discussed challenges regarding the posed question, pursuing the idea of an app for care-cuddles could still be beneficial for all populations. Partnering with a multi-disciplinary team could lead to more innovative ideas in this area.
The concept of accessing updates via handheld devices is indeed innovative, and gathering feedback from parents or caregivers on real-time updates would be a valuable initial step toward assessing the concept’s viability moving forward.
Incorporating in-text citations could also benefit the audience by allowing them to access further information if they’re interested. It was mentioned during the lecture that having colorful care-cuddles to represent different populations is a great idea. I strongly believe that this innovation could achieve great success with the collaboration of an interdisciplinary team and the involvement of families, friends, and caregivers.