State of the Art and Future Trends in the Usability of Patient Monitors
According to the recent literature, approximately 250,000 deaths occur annually in U.S. hospitals resulting from medical error, making it the 3rd leading cause of death. One of the most commonly used devices in hospitals is the Patient Monitor (PM), a device which constantly monitors the vital signs of the patient. This paper reports on a review of the scientific literature on the usability of PMs in critical care. A detailed analysis of the data reveals that: (i) PMs are undergoing a slow, but continuous process of evolution with new advances focusing on enhancing the interaction between the caregivers and the PM, (ii) the usability of PMs is beginning to receive particular attention as usability is now considered to be strongly associated with patient safety. The data from this study will be used to carry out further investigations into the usability of PMs and to inform the design of future PMs.
KeywordsPatient monitor Physiologic monitor Human factors Ergonomics Usability User experience Critical care
- 5.Drews, F.A.: Patient monitors in critical care: lessons for improvement. In: Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches, Performance and Tools, vol. 3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) (2008)Google Scholar
- 6.Koch, S.H., et al.: Intensive care unit nurses’ information needs and recommendations for integrated displays to improve nurses’ situation awareness. JAMIA 19(4), 583–590 (2012)Google Scholar
- 18.Ng, G., et al.: Optimizing the tactile display of physiological information: vibro-tactile vs. electro-tactile stimulation, and forearm or wrist location. In: Proceedings of the Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 2007, pp. 4202–4205 (2007)Google Scholar
- 19.Ng, G., et al.: Evaluation of a tactile display around the waist for physiological monitoring under different clinical workload conditions. In: Proceedings of Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 2008, pp. 1288–1291 (2008)Google Scholar