Abstract
Severe bottlenecks in usability and human technology interaction (HTI) of existing surgical workplaces and operating room (OR) equipment can occur today: lack of space, cable as trip hazard, communication problems between sterile and non-sterile staff, and operating errors in the handling of the medical devices. In fact, risks that are caused by poor usability can be critical, and studies show that most are preventable. This issue gets even more challenging in the context of open-OR networks regarding consistent and usable integration of user interfaces (UIs) of independently designed systems in one integrated surgical work system. In this work, a concept of generic UI profiles for the modular integration of a UI has been developed and first prototypes have been implemented. The concept is essentially based on the approach of device profiles developed in the context of the Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung project OR.NET (www.ornet.org). We developed generic UI profiles to map the different interfaces of the medical devices on an integrated surgical UI. The integrated UI design shall be automatically verified according to agreed usability criteria, guidelines, and human error taxonomies.
Acknowledgments
This work has been funded in part by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) in the framework of the OR.NET project (OR.NET – Secure Dynamic Networking in Operating Room and Clinic; grant no. 16KT1203).
References
[1] Backhaus C. Usability-Engineering in der Medizintechnik: Grundlagen-Methoden-Beispiele. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer 2010.10.1007/978-3-642-00511-4Search in Google Scholar
[2] Benzko J, Janß A, Radermacher K. Bewertung und Gestaltung der Mensch-Maschine-Schnittstellen in integrierten OP-Systemen. In: Radermacher K, Leonhardt S, Abel D, editors. Fortschritt-Berichte VDI Reihe 17 Biotechnik/Medizintechnik, Automatisierungsverfahren für die Medizin, vol. 17, 29–30. Aachen, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
[3] Birkle M, Benzko J, Shevchenko N. Das Projekt OR.NET – Sichere dynamische Vernetzung in OP und Klinik. Deut Zeitsch Klin Forschung Innov Praxis 2012; 6: 41–45.Search in Google Scholar
[4] Bohn S, Hilbert T, Burgert O. User interface integration and remote control for modular surgical assist systems. MIDAS J 2010: 8.10.54294/hjwfpbSearch in Google Scholar
[5] Bohn S, Lessnau M, Burgert O. Monitoring and diagnosis of network medical hardware and software for the integrated operating room. ACM SIGBED Review 2009; 6: 1–5.10.1145/1859823.1859833Search in Google Scholar
[6] Brainlab. Buzz. Digital OR, 2014. Accessed 5 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[7] Brainlab. Intra-operative CT, 2014. Accessed 5 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[8] Bußhaus T, Gregorczyk D, Fischer S. Communication and data model in a medical service oriented architecture. In: 48th DGBMT Annual Conference 8–10 October 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[9] CaderaDesign. TEGRIS touchbased user interface. Video. October 2012.Search in Google Scholar
[10] Cleary K. Medical robotics and the operating room of the future. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology (EMB). New York, NY, USA: IEEE 2005: 7250–7253.10.1109/IEMBS.2005.1616184Search in Google Scholar
[11] Cook RI, Woods DD. Special section: adapting to new technology in the operating room. Hum Factors J Human Factors Ergon Soc 1996; 38: 593–613.10.1518/001872096778827224Search in Google Scholar
[12] Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Long CD, McPeek B. Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. Qual Safety Health Care 2002; 11: 277–282.10.1097/00132586-197910000-00024Search in Google Scholar
[13] DIN IEC 60601-1-6. Medizinische elektrische Geräte – Teil 1–6: Allgemeine Festlegungen für die Sicherheit einschließlich der wesentlichen Leistungsmerkmale – Ergänzungsnorm. Gebrauchstauglichkeit (IEC 62A/630/CD:2008). Berlin: Beuth Verlag 2009.Search in Google Scholar
[14] Eagles S. An introduction to IEC 80001: aiming for patient safety in the networked healthcare environment. IT Horiz 2008: 15–19.Search in Google Scholar
[15] Endoalpha. Endoalpha control and video management, 2014. Accessed 6 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[16] Erbse S, Pichler CV, Radermacher K, et al. Ansätze zur optimierung des arbeitssystems operationssaal mit hilfe einer cad-gestützten anthropometrischen gestaltungsumgebung auf der grundlage arbeitswissenschaftlicher analysen. In: Gärtner K-P, Hrsg. Tagungsband der 37. Bonn: Fachausschußsitzung Fachausschuß T5.5 Anthropotechnik der DGLR 1995: 217–222.Search in Google Scholar
[17] Fairbanks RJ, Caplan S. Poor interface design and lack of usability testing facilitate medical error. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2004; 30: 579–584.10.1016/S1549-3741(04)30068-7Search in Google Scholar
[18] Geissler N, Byrnes T, Lauer W, et al. Patient safety related to the use of medical devices: a review and investigation of the current status in the medical device industry. BMT/Biomed Eng 2013; 58: 67–78.10.1515/bmt-2012-0040Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[19] Gosbeee JW, Gosbee LL, editors. Using human factors engineering to improve patient safety. Oakbrook Terrrace, IL: Joint Commission Resources 2005.Search in Google Scholar
[20] Hölscher UM, Heidecke C-D. Defizite in der Patientensicherheit. Deut Zeitsch Klin Forschung 2012; 3/4: 102–105.Search in Google Scholar
[21] Holzner A, Bulitta C. Nutzenpotentiale eines integrierten OP-Systems – eine effiziente Lösung für die Chirurgie? Electromedica 2002; 70: 17–20.Search in Google Scholar
[22] Hyman WA. Errors in the use of medical equipment. Human Error in Medicine. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1994: 327–347.10.1201/9780203751725-15Search in Google Scholar
[23] Ibach B. Konzeption und Entwicklung einer serviceorientierten Integrationsarchitektur für die Vernetzung von Medizinprodukten im Operationssaal. Shaker 2011.Search in Google Scholar
[24] Ibach B, Benzko J, Schlichting S, Zimolong A, Radermacher K. Integrating medical devices in the operating room using service-oriented architectures. Biomed Eng 2012; 57: 221–228.10.1515/bmt-2011-0101Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[25] Imagawa K, Furihata H. Olympus integrated endosurgery system. Minimal Invasiv Ther 1998; 7: 443–447.10.3109/13645709809153115Search in Google Scholar
[26] ISO/IEC 24752-1. Information technology – user interfaces universal – remote console – part 1: framework, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
[27] ISO/IEC 24752-2. Information technology – user interfaces universal – remote console – part 2: user interface socket description, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
[28] ISO/IEC 24752-3. information technology – user interfaces universal – remote console – part 3: presentation template, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
[29] ISO/IEC 24752-4. Information technology – user interfaces universal – remote console – part 4: target description, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
[30] ISO/IEC 24752-5. IEC 24752: Information technology – user interfaces universal – remote console – part 5: resource description, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
[31] ISO/IEC 24752-6. IEC 24752: Information technology – user interfaces universal – remote console – part 6: web service integration, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
[32] ISO/IEEE 11073-10101. Health informatics – point of care medical device communication – part 10101: nomenclature, 2004.Search in Google Scholar
[33] Janß A, Lauer W, Radermacher K. Development and evaluation of a formal-analytical usability analysing tool for medical devices and systems. In: World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7–12, 2009, Munich, German: Springer 2009: 180–183.10.1007/978-3-642-03893-8_51Search in Google Scholar
[34] Kant IJ, de Jong LC, van Rijssen-Moll M, Borm PJ. A survey of static and dynamic work postures of operating room staff. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 1992; 63: 423–428.10.1007/BF00386939Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[35] Karl Storz. Karl Storz OR1 2014. Accessed 6 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[36] Karl Storz. SBC control NEO 2014. Accessed 6 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[37] Karl Storz. VOICE1 – turning words into action 2014. Accessed 6 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[38] Karsh B-T, Scanlon M. 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. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 50: 433–435.10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.06.481Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[39] Kenyon TA, Urbach DR, Speer JB, et al. Dedicated minimally invasive surgery suites increase operating room efficiency. Surg Endosc 2001; 15: 1140–1143.10.1007/s004640080092Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[40] Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To err is human. Building a safer health system. Washington: National Academy Press 1999.Search in Google Scholar
[41] Koneczny S. Erfassung und Analyse von Schwachstellen in der Funktionsstelle OP deutscher Krankenhäuser. PhD thesis, Erberhard Karls Universität zu Tübingen 2008.Search in Google Scholar
[42] Lauer W, Ibach B, Radermacher K. Bericht zum 54. Arbeitswissenschaftlichen Kongress vom 9.-11.4.2008 an der TU München, Kapitel Entwicklung eines Assistenzsystems zur wissensbasierten Einstellung des OP-Tisches im Rahmen orthopädischer Eingriffe. GfA 2008.Search in Google Scholar
[43] Lauer W, Ibach B, Radermacher K. Development of a knowledge-based or table positioning assistant for orthopedic interventions. Int J Comp Assist Radiol Surg 2008; 3: 133–134.Search in Google Scholar
[44] Lauer W, Ibach B, Radermacher K. Knowledge-based or table positioning assistant for orthopedic surgery. In: Nyssen-J M, Haueisen, Vander Sloten J, Verdonck P, editors, ECIFMBE 2008, IFMBE Proceedings 22, 2008: 1676–1678.10.1007/978-3-540-89208-3_398Search in Google Scholar
[45] Lin L, Isla R, Doniz K, Harkness H, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ. Applying human factors to the design of medical equipment: patient-controlled analgesia. J Clin Monit Comput 1998; 14: 253–263.10.1023/A:1009928203196Search in Google Scholar
[46] Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, et al. Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13: 330–334.10.1136/qshc.2003.008425Search in Google Scholar
[47] Maquet. Variop, 2014. Accessed 6 February 2011.Search in Google Scholar
[48] Martini M. Maquet Tegris, October 2012. Accessed 6 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[49] Mårvik R, Langø T, Yavuz Y. An experimental operating room project for advanced laparoscopic surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg 2004; 11: 211–216.10.1177/107155170401100311Search in Google Scholar
[50] Matt S. Computer physician order entry and the real world: we’re only humans. Jt Comm J Qual Saf 2004; 30: 342–346.Search in Google Scholar
[51] Meyer M, Levine W, Egan M, et al. A computerized perioperative data integration and display system. Int J CompAssist Radiol Surg 2007; 2: 191–202.10.1007/s11548-007-0126-0Search in Google Scholar
[52] Montag K. Untersuchung zur Gebrauchstauglichkeit von Medizinprodukten im Anwendungsbereich OP. PhD thesis, Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Tübingen 2009.Search in Google Scholar
[53] Moser H, Dehm J, Gessner C, Golatowski F, Heidenreich G, Onken M. Sichere dynamische Vernetzung in Operationssaal und Klinik. Whitepaper, VDE Verband der Elektrotechnik, Mai 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[54] Nowatschin S. CIO – Computer Integrated Operationroom – Neue Konzepte und Systeme für einen Computer-Integrierten Operationssaal. PhD thesis, TU München 2009.Search in Google Scholar
[55] Osvalder A-L, Bligård L-O. Usability and ergonomics in medical equipment. In: Proceedings of the 39th Nordic ergonomics society conference, October 1–3 2007, Lysekil, Sweden 2007.Search in Google Scholar
[56] Reason J. Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press 1990.10.1017/CBO9781139062367Search in Google Scholar
[57] Richard Wolf. http://www.richard-wolf.com/core/digitaler-op.html [Zugriff 16.09.2013], 2013.Search in Google Scholar
[58] Richard Wolf. Instrument Control, 2014. Accessed 6 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[59] Schubert F, Dittrich D, Leiber P, Bullinger A. Usability von Medizingeräten im Bereich der OP-Anwendung – eine Anwenderstudie. In Chancen durch Arbeits-, Produkt- und Systemgestaltung: GfA 2013: 677–680.Search in Google Scholar
[60] Schurr MO, Buess G, Weiglhofer G, Senft R, Groezinger R, Brandmaier R. The operating room system for endoscopic surgery: project OREST I. Minimal Invasiv Ther 1995; 4: 57–62.10.3109/13645709509152756Search in Google Scholar
[61] Seyffert A-M, Kraft M, Prümper J. Prospektiv nutzergerechte Softwaregestaltung in integrierten OP-Sälen. 2010.Search in Google Scholar
[62] Shroff P, Winters JM. Generation of multi-modal interfaces for hand-held devices based on user preferences and abilities. In: Distributed Diagnosis and Home Healthcare, 2006. D2H2. 1st Transdisciplinary Conference on: IEEE 2006: 124–128.Search in Google Scholar
[63] Stryker. i-Suite, 2014. Accessed 6 February 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[64] Stubbs DA. Ergonomics and occupational medicine: future challenges. Occup Med (Lond) 2000; 50: 277–282.10.1093/occmed/50.4.277Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[65] W3C: XPath, 2014. Accessed 9 April 2014.Search in Google Scholar
[66] Wong DA, Herndon JH, Canale ST, et al. Medical errors in orthopaedics results of an AAOS member survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 547–557.10.2106/JBJS.G.01439Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[67] Wong J, Yau K, Chung C, Siu W, Li M. Endo-Lap OR. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 1252–1256.10.1007/s00464-005-0762-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[68] Zhang J, Patel VL, Johnson TR, Chung P, Turley JP. Evaluating and predicting patient safety for medical devices with integral information technology. Technical report, DTIC Document 2005.10.1037/e448232006-001Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Special Issue Risk management in medical human-machine systems
- Special issue articles
- Bottlenecks and needs in human-human and human-machine interaction – a view from and into the neurosurgical OR
- A human factors perspective on medical device alarms: problems with operating alarming devices and responding to device alarms
- Human-centered risk management for medical devices – new methods and tools
- Modular user interface design for integrated surgical workplaces
- Development and experimental evaluation of an alarm concept for an integrated surgical workstation
- Training students to use syringe pumps: an experimental comparison of e-learning and classroom training
- Approaches towards training in human risk management of surgical technology
- A UK medical devices regulator’s perspective on registries
- Incident reporting to BfArM – regulatory framework, results and challenges
- Book review
- Volume 10 of the Textbook Series Biomedical Technology
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- Special Issue Risk management in medical human-machine systems
- Special issue articles
- Bottlenecks and needs in human-human and human-machine interaction – a view from and into the neurosurgical OR
- A human factors perspective on medical device alarms: problems with operating alarming devices and responding to device alarms
- Human-centered risk management for medical devices – new methods and tools
- Modular user interface design for integrated surgical workplaces
- Development and experimental evaluation of an alarm concept for an integrated surgical workstation
- Training students to use syringe pumps: an experimental comparison of e-learning and classroom training
- Approaches towards training in human risk management of surgical technology
- A UK medical devices regulator’s perspective on registries
- Incident reporting to BfArM – regulatory framework, results and challenges
- Book review
- Volume 10 of the Textbook Series Biomedical Technology