ICoRD'13 pp 1039-1049 | Cite as

External Barriers to User-Centred Development of Bespoke Medical Devices in the UK

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

It is widely accepted that user-centred approaches to the development process produces better products and therefore brings commercial rewards. Despite such acceptance, the majority of manufacturers of medical devices fail to adopt such development principles. This paper will examine cases of manufacturers of bespoke medical devices, where one might perceive that the engagement with the end-user throughout the development process is critical to product quality. In a previous study undertaken by the author, interviews with manufacturers of bespoke medical devices indicated a perception that three external stakeholders to present barriers to the application of a user-centred design approach. This paper reports on a follow up study to understand the practice and agendas of the three external stakeholders, in order to draw a comparison with the manufacturers’ views. The findings revealed mismatch between the product development process that manufacturers of medical devices are encouraged to apply and the practicalities of complying with the needs of the identified stakeholders.

Keywords

User-centred design Medical device Product development process 

References

  1. 1.
    Thimbleby H (2008) Ignorance of interaction programming is killing people. Interact, Sept/Oct 2008, 15:52–57Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    National Patient Safety Agency (2010) Design for patient safety: user testing in the development of medical devices. NPSA and MATCH, Mar 2010Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nordic Innovation Centre (2011) New methods for user driven innovation in the health care sector. Available at http://www.nordicinnovation.net/prosjekt.cfm?Id=3-4415-244. Accessed 25 May 2011
  4. 4.
    Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (1999) Product design and development, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, London International Edition, pp 53–68, 187–207Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kyberd P, Wartenberg C, Sandsjö L, Jönsson S, Gow D, Frid J, Almström C, Sperling L (2007) Survey of upper-extremity prosthesis users in Sweden and the United Kingdom. J Prosthetics Orthot 19(2):55–62Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winters JM, Story MF (2006) Medical instrumentation: accessibility and usability considerations, CRC Press, New York (31 Oct 2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Council Directive (1993) 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices. Official J Eur Communities, L169 Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lemke MR, Winters JM (2008) Removing barriers to medical devices for users with impairments. Ergon Des: Q Human Factors Appl 6(3):18–25 (20 June 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Money AG, Barnett J, Kuljis J, Craven MP, Martin JL, Young T (2011) The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers’ perspective. (BioMedCentral), BMC Med Inform Decis Making 11:15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mihoc A, Walters A, Eggbeer D, Gill S (2012) Barriers to user-centred design in the development of bespoke medical devices: a manufacturers’ view.In 13th national conference on rapid design, prototyping and manufacturing, Lancaster, 22 June 2012Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Medical Safety Design (2011) User-oriented interface design for medical products. Available at http://www.medical-safety-design.de/en/medical-safety-design/user-centered-interface-design/. Accessed 12/03/2011
  12. 12.
    Usability Professionals’ Association (2011) What is user-centred design? Available at http://www.upassoc.org/usability_resources/about_usability/what_is_ucd.html. Accessed 20/09/2011

Copyright information

© Springer India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The National Centre for Product Design and Development ResearchCardiff Metropolitan UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations