Advertisement

Design and Ergonomics in the Medical Sector: A Methodology to Evaluate the Ergonomics Performances for Anesthesia Workstations

  • Mattia Pistolesi
  • Stefano Bellucci
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

Some people may find it difficult to manage products or interact with systems. This is mostly due to product designed and not to final user. In healthcare the medical devices (DMs) that highlight design flaws can cause operating errors and generate adverse events.

Despite manufactures of medical devices claim that Human Factors have a high priority in their projects, few of these are flawless products from the perspective of design and human-machine interface.

Ergonomics and design methodologies were used in the context of a negotiated procedure for the supply of anesthesia systems for surgeries. Hierarchical task analysis, User Observation, Questionnaire, and Gap Analysis were used for the ergonomics evaluation and to evaluate the usability of an anesthesia system for two Tuscany hospitals. The evaluations were conducted with medical personnel (doctors and nurses).

The obtained results allowed the effectiveness usability levels of product and its components and digital interfaces.

The methodology showed in this article provides a useful tool to study ergonomics, usability and errors during the use of anesthesia workstation.

Keywords

Ergonomics evaluation Usability Easy to use Medical devices 

References

  1. 1.
    Norman D (2013) The design of everyday things. Revised and expanded edition by Norman. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tartaglia R, Albolino S, Bellandi T, Bianchini E, Biggeri A, Fabbro G, Bevilacqua L, Dell’Erba A, Privitera G, Sommella L (2012) Adverse events and preventable consequences: retrospective study in five large Italian hospitals. Epidemiol Prev 36(3–4):151–161Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drews FA (2012) Human error in health care. In: Carayon P (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety, 2nd edn. CRC Press, pp 323–340Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Institute of Medicine (2000) To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academic Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weinger MB (2012) Human factors in Anesthesiology. In: Carayon P (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in health care and patient safety, 2nd edn. CRC Press, pp 803–823 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinger MB, Wiklund M, Gardner-Bonneau D (2011) Human factors in medical device design: a handbook for designer. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mosenkis R (1994) Human factors in design. In: Van Gruting CWD (ed) Medical devices: International perspectives on health and safety, Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 41–51Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    IEC 62366-1:2015 (2015) Medical devices – Part 1: Application of usability engineering to medical devicesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    ISO 9241-210:2010 (2010) Ergonomics of human-system interaction, part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systemsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Polillo R (2010) Facile da utilizzare. Una moderna introduzione generale all’ingegneria dell’usabilità, Apogeo Education, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tosi F (2006) Ergonomia e progetto. FrancoAngeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    UNI 11377-1:2010 (2010) Usabilità dei prodotti industriali, parte 1, Principi generali, termini e definizioniGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    UNI 11377-2:2010 (2010) Usabilità dei prodotti industriali, parte 2, Metodi e strumenti di interventoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stanton NA, Young MS, Harvey C (2014) Guide to methodology in ergonomics. Taylor and Francis, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rogers Y, Sharp H, Preece, J.: Interaction design: beyond human computer interaction, 3rd edn. Wiley (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, Toolkit for Using the AHRQ Quality Indicators (2016). http://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/professionals/systems/hospital/qitoolkit/combined/combined_toolkit.pdf
  17. 17.
    NASA Task Load Index (TLX): Paper and pencil version, Moffet Field CA: NASA - Ames Research Center, Aerospace Human Factors Research Division (1986)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hart SG, Stavelend LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), pp 139–183Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Righi S, Pierguidi L (2016) Ergonomia cognitiva. In Tosi, F.: La professione dell’ergonomo nella progettazione dell’ambiente, dei prodotti e dell’organizzazione, Franco, Angeli, Milano, pp 73–88Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hill Golden S, Hager D, Gould LJ, Mathioudakis N, Pronovost PJ (2017) A Gap Analysis needs assessment tool to drive a care delivery and research agenda for integration of care and sharing of best practices across a health system. Joint Commission J Qual Patient Saf 43:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen J (2001) Success Rate: The Simplest Usability Metric (2001). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/success-rate-the-simplest-usability-metric

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Ergonomics and Design, Department of ArchitectureUniversity of FlorenceCalenzanoItaly
  2. 2.Scuola di Ingegneria, Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’InformazioneUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations