Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 35, Issue 10, pp 1687–1691

Evaluation of the user-friendliness of seven new generation intensive care ventilators

  • Laurence Vignaux
  • Didier Tassaux
  • Philippe Jolliet



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.


Mechanical ventilation User-friendliness Ergonomics 

Supplementary material

134_2009_1580_MOESM1_ESM.doc (77 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 77 kb)


  1. 1.
    Rothschild JM, Landrigan C, Cronin J, Kaushal R, Lockley S, Burdick E, Stone P, Lilly C, Katz J, Czeisler CA, Bates D (2005) The critical care safety study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med 33(8):1694–1700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bracco D, Favre J, Bissonnette B, Wasserfallen J, Revelly J, Ravussin P, Chiolero R (2001) Human errors in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit: a 1-year prospective study. Intensive Care Med 27(1):137–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Giraud T, Dhainaut JF, Vaxelaire JF, Joseph T, Journois D, Bleichner G, Sollet JP, Chevret S, Monsallier JF (1993) Iatrogenic complications in adult intensive care units: a prospective two-center study. Crit Care Med 21(1):40–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, Badihi Y, Biesky M, Sprung C, Pizov R, Cotev S (1995) A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 23(2):294–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wright D, Mackenzie S, Buchan I, Cairns C, Price L (1991) Critical incidents in the intensive therapy unit. Lancet 338(8768):676–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    HO JCA (2002) Preventing ventilator-related deaths and injuries. Jt Comm Perspect 22(4):14–15Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horsky J, Zhang J, Patel V (2005) To err is not entirely human: complex technaology and user cognition. J Biomed Inf 38:264–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang J, Patel V, Johnson T, Shortliffe E (2004) A cognitive taxonomy of medical errors. J Biomed Inf 37:193–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buckle P, Clarkson P, Coleman R, Ward J, Anderson J (2006) Patient safety, design and ergonomics. Appl Ergonomics 37:491–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin J, Norris B, Murphy E, Crowe J (2008) Medical device development: the challenge for ergonomics. Appl Ergonomics 39:271–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gonzalez-Bermejo J, Laplanche V, Husseini F, Duguet A, Derenne J, Similowski T (2006) Evaluation of the user-friendliness of 11 home mechanical ventilators. Eur Respir J 27(6):1236–1243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Uzawa Y, Yamada Y, Suzukawa M (2008) Evaluation of the user interface simplicity in the modern generation of mechanical ventilators. Respir Care 53(3):329–337PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Battisti A, Tassaux D, Janssens J, Michotte J, Jaber S, Jolliet P (2005) Performance characteristics of ten recent bilevel ventilators: a comparative bench study. Chest 127:1784–1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vignaux L, Tassaux D, Jolliet P (2007) Performance of noninvasive ventilation modes on ICU ventilators during pressure support: a bench model study. Intensive Care Med 33(8):1444–1451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grace K (1998) The ventilator: selection of mechanical ventilators. Crit Care Clin 14:563–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson J (2000) Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl Ergonomics 31:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhang J, Johnson T, Patel V, Kubose T (2003) Using usability heuristics to evaluate patient safety of medical devices. J Biomed Inf 36:23–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Obradovich J, Woods D (1996) Users as designers: how people cope with poor HCI design in computer-based medical devices. Hum Factors 38:574–592PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 29:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 33:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laurence Vignaux
    • 1
  • Didier Tassaux
    • 1
  • Philippe Jolliet
    • 1
  1. 1.Service des soins intensifsHôpital Cantonal UniversitaireGeneva 14Switzerland

Personalised recommendations