Purpose: The use of active medical devices in clinical routine should be as safe and efficient as possible. Usability tests (UTs) help improve these aspects of medical devices during their development, but UTs can be of use for hospitals even after a product has been launched. The present pilot study examines the costs and possible benefits of UT for hospitals before buying new medical devices for theatre. Methods: Two active medical devices with different complexity were tested in a standardized UT and a cost-benefit analysis was carried out assuming a different device bought at the same price with a higher usability could increase the efficiency of task solving and due to that save valuable theatre time. Results: The cost of the UT amounted up to €19.400. Hospitals could benefit from UTs before buying new devices for theatre by reducing time-consuming operator errors and thereby increase productivity and patient safety. The possible benefits amounted from €23.300 to €1.570.000 (median = €797.000). Conclusion: Not only hospitals could benefit economically from investing in a UT before deciding to buy a medical device, but especially patients would profit from a higher usability by reducing possible operator errors and increase safety and performance of use.
BackhausC.Usability-Engineering in der Medizintechnik. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010.
2.
International Organization for Standardization. DIN EN IEC 62366-1, Medical devices—Part 1: application of usability engineering to medical devices. https://www.iso.org/standard/63179.html. Accessed March 28, 2017.
FairbanksRJCaplanS.Poor interface design and lack of usability testing facilitate medical error. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004;30:579-584.
5.
FeigalDWGardnerSNMcClellanM.Ensuring safe and effective medical devices. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:191-192.
6.
KohnLTCorriganJMDonaldsonMS.To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
7.
MaternU.Ergonomic deficiencies in the operating room: examples from minimally invasive surgery. Work. 2009;33:165-168.
8.
MaternUKonecznyS.Working conditions in the operating room: surgeons surveyed during the annual meeting of the German Society of Surgery 2004 [in German]. Zentralbl Chir. 2006;131:393-400.
9.
HallbeckMSKonecznySBuchelDMaternU.Ergonomic usability testing of operating room devices. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;132:147-152.
10.
BiasRMayhewD.Cost-Justifying Usability. An Update for the Internet Age. 2nd ed.Boston, MA: Elsevier; 2005.
11.
KrugS.Don’t Make Me Think! A Common Sense Approach to Web Usability. 2nd ed.Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press; 2005.
12.
KrugS.Rocket Surgery Made Easy: The Do-It-Yourself Guide to Finding and Fixing Usability Problems. 1st ed. Berkeley, CA: New Riders Press; 2009.
13.
BüchelD.Entwicklung einer allgemeingültigen Standardprozedur zur Überprüfung der Gebrauchstauglichkeit medizintechnischer Produkte (Thesis). Tuebingen, Germany: Eberhard Karls University; 2010.
14.
TullisTAlbertW.Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Oxford, England: Elsevier/Morgan Kaufmann; 2008.
GonserPMaternU.Trial provision in clinical routine. Definition of terms and investigation of normal practice [in German]. Chirurg. 2014;85:51-56.
17.
GonserPMedvedFSchallerHELotterO. Economic profit of different injuries in a centre for hand surgery—replantation vs. amputation [in German]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2013;45:350-353.
