San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94121, United States; School of Nursing, Departments of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94121, United States.
San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94121, United States; Northern California Institute for Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94121, United States; Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94121, United States.
Resuscitation. 2016 Apr;101:71-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.01.029. Epub 2016 Feb 8.
Equipment-related issues have recently been cited as a significant contributor to the suboptimal outcomes of resuscitation management. A systematic evaluation of the human-device interface was undertaken to evaluate the intuitive nature of three different defibrillators. Devices tested were the Physio-Control LifePak 15, the Zoll R Series Plus, and the Philips MRx.
A convenience sample of 73 multidisciplinary health care providers from 5 different hospitals participated in this study. All subjects' performances were evaluated without any training on the devices being studied to assess the intuitiveness of the user interface to perform the functions of delivering an Automated External Defibrillator (AED) shock, a manual defibrillation, pacing to achieve 100% capture, and synchronized cardioversion on a rhythm simulator.
Times to deliver an AED shock were fastest with the Zoll, whereas the Philips had the fastest times to deliver a manual defibrillation. Subjects took the least time to attain 100% capture for pacing with the Physio-Control device. No differences in performance times were seen with synchronized cardioversion among the devices. Human factors issues uncovered during this study included a preference for knobs over soft keys and a desire for clarity in control panel design. This study demonstrated no clearly superior defibrillator, as each of the models exhibited strengths in different areas. When asked their defibrillator preference, 67% of subjects chose the Philips.
This comparison of user interfaces of defibrillators in simulated situations allows the assessment of usability that can provide manufacturers and educators with feedback about defibrillator implementation for these critical care devices.
最近，设备相关问题已被认为是复苏管理结果欠佳的一个重要原因。对人机界面进行了系统评估，以评估三种不同除颤器的直观性。测试的设备是 Physio-Control LifePak 15、Zoll R 系列加和 Philips MRx。
本研究便利地选取了来自 5 家不同医院的 73 名多学科医疗保健提供者。在不使用正在研究的设备进行任何培训的情况下，评估所有受试者的表现，以评估用户界面执行自动体外除颤器 (AED) 电击、手动除颤、起搏以达到 100%捕获以及在节律模拟器上进行同步心脏复律的功能的直观性。
Zoll 实现 AED 电击的时间最快，而 Philips 实现手动除颤的时间最快。使用 Physio-Control 设备，受试者达到起搏 100%捕获的时间最短。在同步心脏复律方面，设备之间没有性能时间差异。在这项研究中发现的人为因素问题包括更喜欢旋钮而不是软键，以及希望控制面板设计清晰。本研究表明没有明显优越的除颤器，因为每种型号在不同领域都有优势。当被问及他们喜欢的除颤器时，67%的受试者选择了 Philips。
在模拟情况下对除颤器用户界面的比较允许评估可用性，这可以为制造商和教育者提供有关这些关键护理设备除颤器实施的反馈。
