Usability Study of Two Common Defibrillators Reveals Hazards
To access this article, please choose from the options below
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.
PII: S0196-0644(07)00390-3
doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.03.029
© 2007 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Refers to article:
- Studying the Technical Work of Emergency Care
- 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
