MeD UD – A Process Reference Model for Usability Design in Medical Devices

  • Derek Flood
  • Fergal Mc Caffery
  • Valentine Casey
  • Gilbert Regan
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7946)


A critical component to the success of software systems is the incorporation of the end user. Ensuring that the end user can use the system effectively and efficiently is an important consideration. Failure to do this can lead to user error which in turn can have serious or even fatal consequences. To address this issue in the medical domain, where the risk to patient and user safety is quite high, a number of standards and guidance documents promote the use of Human Factors and Usability Engineering techniques during the development of devices. In this paper we introduce MeD UD (Medical Device Usability Design) – A Process Reference Model (PRM) for evaluating usability engineering in the medical device domain. Through a process assessment utilising the MeD UD PRM, medical device organisations can improve their usability design processes to achieve more usable products, reduce the risks associated with user errors and efficiently meet the medical device regulatory requirements.


Usability Medical Device Software Process Reference Model IEC 62366:2007 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Faris, T.H.: Safe and Sound Software: Creating an Efficient and Effective Quality System for Software Medical Device Organizations. ASQ Quality Press (2006)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogdanich, W.: As Technology Surges, Radiation safeguards lag. New York Times (January 26, 2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    IEC 62366:2007, Medical Devices – Application of usability engineering to medical devicesGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ISO/IEC 15504-5:2012, Information technology - Process Assessment - Part 5: An Exemplar Process Assessment Model. Geneva, Switzerland, ISO (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    CMMI Product Team, Capability Maturity Model® Integration for Development Version 1.2. Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburch PA (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff - Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Optimize Medical Device Design (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sandler, K., Ohrstrom, L., Moy, L., McVay, R.: Killed by Code: Software Transparency in Implantable Medical Devices. Software Freedom Law Center (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), Infusion Pumps Improvement Initiative (2010), (accessed December 7, 2012)
  9. 9.
    European Council, Council Directive 2007/47/EC (Amendment). Official Journal of The European Union, Luxembourg (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McHugh, M., McCaffery, F., Casey, V.: Standalone Software as an Active Medical Device. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2011. CCIS, vol. 155, pp. 97–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burton, J., McCaffery, F., Richardson, I.: A risk management capability model for use in medical device companies. In: International Workshop on Software Quality (WoSQ 2006). ACM, Shanghai (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 13485:2003, Medical devices — Quality management systems — Requirements for regulatory purposes. 2nd edn. Geneva, Switzerland, ISO (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO 14971 – Medical Devices – Application of risk management to medical devices, Switzerland, ISO (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IEC 62304:2006, Medical device software—Software life cycle processes. Geneva, Switzerland, IEC (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO/IEC, ISO 9241: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT) s - Part 11 Guidance on usability (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen, J.: Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In: Proc. ACM CHI 1994 Conf., Boston, MA, April 24-28, pp. 152–158 (1994a)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Holzinger, A.: Biomedical Informatics: Computational Sciences meets Life Sciences. BoD, Norderstedt (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Holzinger, A., Geierhofer, R., Ackerl, S., Searle, G.: Cardiac@View: The User Centred Development of a new Medical Image Viewer. In: Zara, J., Sloup, J. (eds.) Central European Multimedia and Virtual Reality Conference, pp. 63–68. Czech Technical University (CTU), Prague (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. 358 (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. ANSI/AAMI HE75:2009, Human factors engineering – Design of medical devices (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    North, R.A., Patterson, P.A.: A Guide to Navigating the Expanded Human Factors Standard. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology 44(3), 245–247 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCaffery, F., Dorling, A.: Medi SPICE Development. Software Process Maintenance and Evolution: Improvement and Practice Journal 22, 255–268 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Casey, V.: Virtual Software Team Project Management. Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society 16, 83–96 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ISO/IEC 12207:2008, Systems and software engineering - Software life cycle processes. Geneva, Switzerland, ISO (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO/IEC 15504-2 - Software engineering — Process assessment — Part 2: Performing an assessment. 2003: Geneva, Switzerland (2003)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Casey, V., Mc Caffery, F.: Medi SPICE and the development of a Process Reference Model for inclusion in IEC 62304. In: The 7th International Conference on Software Paradigm Trends, ICSOFT 2012, Rome Italy, July 24-27 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    HIMSS Usability Task Force, Promoting usability in Health Organisations: Initial Steps and Progress towards a Healthcare Usability Maturity Model Health. Information and Management Systems Society (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Earthy, J.: Usability Maturity Model: Processes. Lloyds Register of Shipping (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ISO/IEC. 13407 Human-Centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems, ISO/IEC 13407: 1999 (E) (1999)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jokela, T.: The KESSU Usability Design Process Model Version 2.1. Oulu University (2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    ISO/TR 18529, Ergonomics of Human–system Interaction—Human-centred Lifecycle Process Description. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Barafort, B., Renault, A., Picard, M., Cortina, S.: A transformation process for building PRMs and PAMs based on a collection of requirements – Example with ISO/IEC 20000. In: SPICE 2008, Nuremberg, Germany (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derek Flood
    • 1
  • Fergal Mc Caffery
    • 1
  • Valentine Casey
    • 1
  • Gilbert Regan
    • 1
  1. 1.Dundalk Institute of TechnologyDundalkIreland

Personalised recommendations