Date: 29 Jul 2009
Evaluation of the user-friendliness of seven new generation intensive care ventilators
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
To explore the user-friendliness and ergonomics of seven new generation intensive care ventilators.
Prospective task-performing study.
Intensive care research laboratory, university hospital.
Ten physicians experienced in mechanical ventilation, but without prior knowledge of the ventilators, were asked to perform eight specific tasks [turning the ventilator on; recognizing mode and parameters; recognizing and setting alarms; mode change; finding and activating the pre-oxygenation function; pressure support setting; stand-by; finding and activating non-invasive ventilation (NIV) mode]. The time needed for each task was compared to a reference time (by trained physiotherapist familiar with the devices). A time >180 s was considered a task failure.
For each of the tests on the ventilators, all physicians’ times were significantly higher than the reference time (P < 0.001). A mean of 13 ± 8 task failures (16%) was observed by the ventilator. The most frequently failed tasks were mode and parameter recognition, starting pressure support and finding the NIV mode. Least often failed tasks were turning on the pre-oxygenation function and alarm recognition and management. Overall, there was substantial heterogeneity between machines, some exhibiting better user-friendliness than others for certain tasks, but no ventilator was clearly better that the others on all points tested.
The present study adds to the available literature outlining the ergonomic shortcomings of mechanical ventilators. These results suggest that closer ties between end-users and manufacturers should be promoted, at an early development phase of these machines, based on the scientific evaluation of the cognitive processes involved by users in the clinical setting.
This study was presented in abstract form at the 2008 annual meeting of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM).
This article is discussed in the editorial available at: doi:10.1007/s00134-009-1581-6.
HO JCA (2002) Preventing ventilator-related deaths and injuries. Jt Comm Perspect 22(4):14–15
Horsky J, Zhang J, Patel V (2005) To err is not entirely human: complex technaology and user cognition. J Biomed Inf 38:264–266CrossRef
Zhang J, Patel V, Johnson T, Shortliffe E (2004) A cognitive taxonomy of medical errors. J Biomed Inf 37:193–204CrossRef
Buckle P, Clarkson P, Coleman R, Ward J, Anderson J (2006) Patient safety, design and ergonomics. Appl Ergonomics 37:491–500CrossRef
Martin J, Norris B, Murphy E, Crowe J (2008) Medical device development: the challenge for ergonomics. Appl Ergonomics 39:271–283CrossRef
Uzawa Y, Yamada Y, Suzukawa M (2008) Evaluation of the user interface simplicity in the modern generation of mechanical ventilators. Respir Care 53(3):329–337PubMed
Wilson J (2000) Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl Ergonomics 31:557–567CrossRef
Zhang J, Johnson T, Patel V, Kubose T (2003) Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. J Biomed Inf 36:23–30CrossRef
Garmer K, Liljegren E, Osvalder A, Dahlman S (2002) Application of usability testing to the development of medical equipment. Usability testing of a frequently used infusion pump and a new user interface for an infusion pump developed with a human factors approach. Int J Ind Ergon 29:145–149CrossRef
Garmer K, Ylvén J, Karlsson M (2004) User participation in requirements elicitation comparing focus group interviews and usability tests for eliciting usability requirments for medical equipment: a case study. Int J Ind Ergon 33:85–98CrossRef
- Evaluation of the user-friendliness of seven new generation intensive care ventilators
Intensive Care Medicine
Volume 35, Issue 10 , pp 1687-1691
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Mechanical ventilation
- Industry Sectors