Ergonomics and Design: Neonatal Transport Incubator for Premature or Pathological Newborn Transportation

  • Ester IaconoEmail author
  • Francesca TosiEmail author
  • Alessandra RinaldiEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


For the past few years, cultural and technological progress has allowed premature newborns greater possibilities for survival. Since not all the infants are born in hospitals that can provide appropriate treatments, 2–2,5% of newborns need to be transferred. The aim of this design research is to give comfort to the newborn, as well as to give healthcare professionals better working conditions in order to facilitate their interactions and reduce errors during all the transportation phases. This research used methodologies of “Human-Centred Design”, focusing on direct and indirect users’ needs, skills and different points of view of professionals involved in the design or planning of the products/services. By conducting field surveys at the Meyer Children’s Hospital, useful data has been collected to address some of the problems related to neonatal transportation by combining users’ needs with technology. The collected information allowed an analysis of users’ behavior, their needs and the frequency of errors during the performance of tasks, evaluating critical issues of actual products/systems and defining new requirements. The research has focused on understanding the current user incubator interface and on evaluating its emotional impact on users. Indeed, incubators can be very unwieldy and hard to manage during transportation. This approach has led to developing new solutions to better meet the needs of healthcare professionals. By synthesizing the obtained results, it has been possible to set up new solutions which lead to the design of a new incubator for premature or pathological newborn transportation.


Design for Health Human-Centred Design Safety Neonatal transport 



We are grateful to all the medical staff at Meyer Children’s Hospital in Florence that contributed, during the analysis phase, to identify the critical issues and formulate new design solutions. In particular, thanks to Claudio Mondovecchio, Marco Moroni and Silvia Boretti for their contributions and helpfulness in involving all the medical staff in evaluating the usability of the product.


  1. 1.
    Maiocchi M (2010) Design e Medicina. Maggioli Editore, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO 9241-210:2010 (2010) Ergonomics of human-system interaction, part 210:2010, Human-Centred Design for interactive systemsGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tosi F, Rinaldi A (2015) Il design per l’home care: l’approccio human-centred design nel progetto dei dispositivi medici. DIDA PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones PH (2013) Design for care: innovating healthcare experience. Rosenfeld Media LLC, BrooklynGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colombo G (2011) Con ragione e sentimento, Le cure neonatali a sostegno dello sviluppo. In: Gruppo di studio sulla CARE. SIN (Società Italiana di Neonatologia), p 6Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Perletti L et al (2005) Piano per il miglioramento del sistema di emergenza-urgenza. Ministero della salute, Commissione consultivaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bouchut JC, Van Lancker E, Chritin V, Gueugniaud PY (2011) Physical stressors during neonatal transport: helicopter compared with ground ambulance. Air Med J 30(3):134–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gussoni M, Parlangeli O, Tosi F (2008) Ergonomia e progetto della qualità sensoriale. FrancoAngeli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Polillo R (2010) Facile da usare. Una moderna introduzione all’ingegneria dell’usabilità. Edizioni Apogeo, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    UNI 11377-2:2010 (2010) Usabilità dei prodotti industriali, parte 2, Metodi e strumenti di interventoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stanton NA, Young MS, Harvey C (2014) Guide to methodology in ergonomics, designing for human use, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson JR, Sharples S (2015) Evaluation of human work, 4th edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ericsson KA, Herbert AS (1993) Protocol analysis: verbal reports as data. The MIT Press, Cambridge Revised editionGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Annett J, Stanton NA (2000) Task analysis. Taylor & Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saffer D (2007) Design dell’interazione. Creare applicazioni intelligenti e dispositivi ingegnosi con l’interaction design. Pearson Italia SpaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fries RC (2016) Reliable design of medical devices. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen J, Loranger H (2006) Prioritizing web usability. Pearson Education, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joassen DH, Thessmer M, Hannum WH (1999) Task analysis methods for instructional design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norman DA (2013) Design of everyday things: revised and expanded. Basic Books (AZ), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rogers Y, Sharp H, Preece J (2011) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Ergonomics and Design, Department of ArchitectureUniversity of FlorenceCalenzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations