The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience
The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s13054-016-1431-1
复制
发表时间：
2016-08-20
期刊：
影响因子：
15.1
通讯作者：
Cafazzo, Joseph A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Morita, Plinio P.;Weinstein, Peter B.;Cafazzo, Joseph A.
背景：重症监护室（CCV）的设计复杂性可能导致使用错误和患者伤害。在这项研究中，我们提出了一个比较的结果，四个CCV从市场领导者，使用严格的方法来评估使用安全性和用户体验的医疗device.Methods：我们进行了比较可用性研究的四个CCV：汉密尔顿G5，Puritan班尼特980，Maquet SERVO-U，和Drager Evita V500。48名重症监护呼吸治疗师参加了这项完全平衡的重复测量研究。参与者在每台呼吸机上完成了由16项任务组成的7个临床场景。使用安全性通过使用错误或侥幸成功（UE/CC）的任务百分比来衡量。用户体验测量系统的可用性和工作量指标，使用后研究系统可用性问卷（PSSUQ）和美国国家航空航天局任务负荷指数（NASA-TLX）。结果：九个18事后对比对的验证者显着Bonferroni校正后，效果大小在0.4和1.09（科恩的d）。与G5（p = 0.044）和V500（p = 0.020）相比，SERVO-U的UE/CC显著较少。参与者报告G5的系统可用性高于PB 980（p = 0.035），SERVO-U的系统可用性高于G5（p < 0.001）、PB 980（p < 0.001）和V500（p < 0.001）。与PB 980（p <0.001）和V500（p < 0.001）相比，参与者报告G5的工作量较低，SERVO-U的工作量较低。G5在九个可能的比较中有两个得分更高; SERVO-U在九个可能的比较中有七个得分更高。影响参与者的表现和感知的方面包括G5的触摸屏的低灵敏度和从SERVO-U的用户界面design.Conclusions的质量的积极影响：本研究提供了经验证据，如何从市场领导者的四个演示比较，并突出了医疗技术设计的重要性。在本研究范围内，我们可以推断SERVO-U的使用安全性和用户体验水平最高，其次是G5。基于定性数据，结果的差异可以通过交互设计，制造中使用的硬件组件的质量以及消费产品技术对用户期望的影响来解释。
Background: 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.Methods: We carried out a comparative usability study of four CCVs: Hamilton G5, Puritan Bennett 980, Maquet SERVO-U, and Drager 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).Results: 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.Conclusions: 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.