%0 Journal Article %1 Spaeth2017:AnaesthesiaVentilators %A Spaeth, Johannes %A Schweizer, Tina %A Schmutz, Axel %A Buerkle, Hartmut %A Schumann, Stefan %D 2017 %J Br J Anaesth %K Anaesthesia Medicine Study Ventilator %N 5 %P 1000-1008 %R 10.1093/bja/aex226 %T Comparative usability of modern anaesthesia ventilators: a human factors study %U https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29028917 %V 119 %X The anaesthesia ventilator represents the key equipment for intraoperative respiratory care. Improper operation of this device may threaten a patient's health. A self-explanatory interface facilitates handling and decreases the risk of operating errors. This study systematically evaluates the usability of user interfaces in four modern anaesthesia ventilators.Twenty na\ï\ve operators were asked to execute 20 tasks on each of four different anaesthesia ventilators (Avance CS2™, GE Healthcare; Flow-i™, Maquet; and Perseus™ and Primus™, Dr\ä\ger) in a randomized order. The success of task execution, frequency of requests for assistance, and processing times were recorded. During the tasks, the operators' visual focus was measured via eye-tracking. Additionally, subjective assessments of usability were evaluated by a standardized questionnaire. For comparison, six experienced operators undertook the same protocol.The overall rate of falsely executed tasks was low. Na\ï\ve operators requested assistance least when using the Perseus (26). Pooled processing times were shortest for the Perseus (222 s), followed by the Primus (223 s), the Avance (238 s), and the Flow-i (353 s). Task-specific processing times differed considerably between the devices. Eye-tracking analyses revealed associated interface issues that impeded the operators' performance. Operators rated usability best for the Perseus mean (sd): 67 (17) arbitrary units and worst for the Flow-i 50 (16) arbitrary units. Results from experienced operators support these findings by trend.The usability of modern anaesthesia ventilators differs considerably. Interface issues of specific tasks impair the operator's efficiency. Eliminating the specific usability issues might improve the operator's performance and, as a consequence, the patient's safety.

@article{Spaeth2017:AnaesthesiaVentilators, abstract = {The anaesthesia ventilator represents the key equipment for intraoperative respiratory care. Improper operation of this device may threaten a patient's health. A self-explanatory interface facilitates handling and decreases the risk of operating errors. This study systematically evaluates the usability of user interfaces in four modern anaesthesia ventilators.Twenty na\{\"i\}ve operators were asked to execute 20 tasks on each of four different anaesthesia ventilators (Avance CS2™, GE Healthcare; Flow-i™, Maquet; and Perseus™ and Primus™, Dr\{\"a\}ger) in a randomized order. The success of task execution, frequency of requests for assistance, and processing times were recorded. During the tasks, the operators' visual focus was measured via eye-tracking. Additionally, subjective assessments of usability were evaluated by a standardized questionnaire. For comparison, six experienced operators undertook the same protocol.The overall rate of falsely executed tasks was low. Na\{\"i\}ve operators requested assistance least when using the Perseus (26). Pooled processing times were shortest for the Perseus (222 s), followed by the Primus (223 s), the Avance (238 s), and the Flow-i (353 s). Task-specific processing times differed considerably between the devices. Eye-tracking analyses revealed associated interface issues that impeded the operators' performance. Operators rated usability best for the Perseus [mean (sd): 67 (17) arbitrary units] and worst for the Flow-i [50 (16) arbitrary units]. Results from experienced operators support these findings by trend.The usability of modern anaesthesia ventilators differs considerably. Interface issues of specific tasks impair the operator's efficiency. Eliminating the specific usability issues might improve the operator's performance and, as a consequence, the patient's safety.}, added-at = {2019-09-19T11:44:29.000+0200}, author = {Spaeth, Johannes and Schweizer, Tina and Schmutz, Axel and Buerkle, Hartmut and Schumann, Stefan}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2af9cab9dcc5a9beb770decbba4f61949/bcoldewey}, doi = {10.1093/bja/aex226}, interhash = {d19a8911d560442f97f2baedfdc85657}, intrahash = {af9cab9dcc5a9beb770decbba4f61949}, journal = {Br J Anaesth}, keywords = {Anaesthesia Medicine Study Ventilator}, month = nov, number = 5, pages = {1000-1008}, pmid = {29028917}, timestamp = {2019-09-19T11:44:29.000+0200}, title = {Comparative usability of modern anaesthesia ventilators: a human factors study}, url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29028917}, volume = 119, year = 2017 }