The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience
Open Access
- 20 August 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Critical Care
- Vol. 20 (1), 1-9
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1431-1
Abstract
The design complexity of critical care ventilators (CCVs) can lead to use errors and patient harm. In this study, we present the results of a comparison of four CCVs from market leaders, using a rigorous methodology for the evaluation of use safety and user experience of medical devices. We carried out a comparative usability study of four CCVs: Hamilton G5, Puritan Bennett 980, Maquet SERVO-U, and Dräger Evita V500. Forty-eight critical care respiratory therapists participated in this fully counterbalanced, repeated measures study. Participants completed seven clinical scenarios composed of 16 tasks on each ventilator. Use safety was measured by percentage of tasks with use errors or close calls (UE/CCs). User experience was measured by system usability and workload metrics, using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Nine of 18 post hoc contrasts between pairs of ventilators were significant after Bonferroni correction, with effect sizes between 0.4 and 1.09 (Cohen’s d). There were significantly fewer UE/CCs with SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p = 0.044) and V500 (p = 0.020). Participants reported higher system usability for G5 when compared to PB980 (p = 0.035) and higher system usability for SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p < 0.001), PB980 (p < 0.001), and V500 (p < 0.001). Participants reported lower workload for G5 when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and lower workload for SERVO-U when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and V500 (p < 0.001). G5 scored better on two of nine possible comparisons; SERVO-U scored better on seven of nine possible comparisons. Aspects influencing participants’ performance and perception include the low sensitivity of G5’s touchscreen and the positive effect from the quality of SERVO-U’s user interface design. This study provides empirical evidence of how four ventilators from market leaders compare and highlights the importance of medical technology design. Within the boundaries of this study, we can infer that SERVO-U demonstrated the highest levels of use safety and user experience, followed by G5. Based on qualitative data, differences in outcomes could be explained by interaction design, quality of hardware components used in manufacturing, and influence of consumer product technology on users’ expectations.Keywords
This publication has 54 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Vibro-Tactile Display for Clinical MonitoringAnesthesia & Analgesia, 2012
- Clinical review: The hospital of the future - building intelligent environments to facilitate safe and effective acute care deliveryCritical Care, 2012
- Comparison of 3 different multianalyte point-of-care devices during clinical routine on a medical intensive care unitJournal of Critical Care, 2011
- Patient safety and acute care medicine: lessons for the future, insights from the pastCritical Care, 2010
- Analysis of home support and ventilator malfunction in 1,211 ventilator-dependent patientsEuropean Respiratory Journal, 2009
- Improving care by understanding the way we work: human factors and behavioural science in the context of intensive careCritical Care, 2009
- Staffing level: a determinant of late-onset ventilator-associated pneumoniaCritical Care, 2007
- The Evaluation of a Pulmonary Display to Detect Adverse Respiratory Events Using High Resolution Human SimulatorJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2006
- Human factors engineering: A tool for medical device evaluation in hospital procurement decision-makingJournal of Biomedical Informatics, 2005
- Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factorsPublished by BMJ ,2002