• J Spaeth, T Schweizer, A Schmutz, H Buerkle, and S Schumann.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Strasse 55, 79106 Freiburg, Germany.
• Br J Anaesth. 2017 Nov 1; 119 (5): 1000-1008.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsTwenty naïve 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™, Dräger) 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.ResultsThe overall rate of falsely executed tasks was low. Naïve 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.ConclusionsThe 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.© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com

18 keywords...

hide…