Usability Study of Two Common Defibrillators Reveals Hazards
Presented in part at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th annual meeting, September 2004, New Orleans, LA; and the National Association of EMS Physicians meeting, January 2006, Tucson, AZ.
Received 2 June 2006; received in revised form 3 January 2007 and 22 March 2007; accepted 27 March 2007. published online 11 May 2007.
Refers to article:
Studying the Technical Work of Emergency Care
Christopher P. Nemeth, Richard I. Cook, Robert L. Wears
Annals of Emergency Medicine
October 2007 (Vol. 50, Issue 4, Pages 384-386) Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (68 KB)
When Is a Defibrillator Not a Defibrillator? When It’s Like a Clock Radio … . The Challenge of Usability and Patient Safety in the Real World
, 28 August 2007
Ben-Tzion Karsh, Matthew Scanlon
Annals of Emergency Medicine
October 2007 (Vol. 50, Issue 4, Pages 433-435) Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (67 KB)
Study objective
This usability study evaluates the user interface of 2 common monitor-defibrillators, the Lifepak10 and Lifepak12, to identify use-related hazards.
Methods
Fourteen paramedics familiar with both devices completed 4 EMS simulator scenarios using each device. The scenarios involved “quick look” and monitoring, defibrillation, synchronized cardioversion, and replacing paper. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected, including both participant self-evaluation (scored 1 to 9) and expert observer evaluation (scored 0 to 4).
Results
Participant ratings demonstrated that for performing a quick look, the Lifepak10 was easier to use (mean 8.0 versus 7.1), and for synchronized cardioversion the Lifepak12 was easier (mean 6.7 versus 5.3). Participants performed better on the Lifepak12 than the Lifepak10 for synchronized cardioversion (mean 3.1 versus 1.6) and replacing paper (mean 3.0 versus 2.1). One participant did not complete the final questionnaire. Of the remaining 13, 11 (85%) participants preferred the Lifepak12 for use on a regular basis. Eight (62%) paramedics thought that the Lifepak12 would be more effective in an emergency; 9 (69%) believed that the Lifepak10 is quicker to learn. Paramedics reported difficulty using the devices with gloves and confusion in “sync” mode. Of note, 50% of participants inadvertently delivered an unsynchronized countershock for supraventricular tachycardia.
Conclusion
Although the Lifepak10 is easier to learn, the Lifepak12 is perceived as easier to use and more effective in emergencies. The high failure rate in synchronized cardioversion indicates a need to reevaluate the user interface design for this function. Limitations of this study include the use of simulation.
aDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY
bDepartment of Community and Preventative Medicine, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY
Address for correspondence: Rollin J. (Terry) Fairbanks, MD, MS, NREMTP, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 655, Rochester, NY 14642; 585-273-3849, fax 585-275-2092
Supervising editor: Robert L. Wears, MD, MS
Author contributions: RJF and SHC conceived the study, designed the study, and obtained research funding. RJF, SHC, and MNS supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. RJF, PAB, AMM, and MNS undertook recruitment of participating paramedics. RJF, SHC, and MNS managed the data. All investigators participated in the qualitative analysis. MNS provided statistical advice and RJF, SHC, and MNS analyzed the data. RJF and SHC drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. RJF takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article, that may create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement. This research was supported by the University of Rochester Department of Emergency Medicine research seed funding. At the time of the study, Drs. Fairbanks and Shah were supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (1R41NR009592) and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1U18HS015818), and Dr. Shah, by funding from Health Resources and Services Administration.
Available online May 11, 2007.
Reprints not available from the authors.
1 Mr. Marks is now with Bridgeborn Government Solutions, Arlington, VA.
ABSTRACT