Abstract
Although human engineering features are widely appreciated as a potential cause of operating room incidents, evaluating the human engineering features of devices is not widely understood. Standards, guidelines, laboratory and field testing, and engineering discipline are all proposed methods for improving the human engineering of devices. New microprocessor technology offers designers great flexibility in the design of devices, but this flexibility is often coupled with complexity and more elaborate user interaction. Guidelines and standards usually do not capture these features of new equipment, in part because technology improvements occur faster than meaningful guidelines can be developed. Professional human engineering of new devices relies on a broad, user-centered approach to design and evaluation. Used in the framework of current knowledge about human operator performance, these techniques offer guidance to new equipment designers and to purchasers and users of these devices.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Human factors engineering guidelines and preferred practices for the design of medical devices. (AAMI HE-1988). Arlington, VA:AAMI, 1988
Van Cott HP, Kinkade RG. Human engineering guide to equipment design. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972
Woodson WE, Conover DW. Human engineering guide for equipment designers, 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1973
United States Air Force. Air Force systems command design handbook (AFSC DH 1–3), human factors engineering. Wright Patterson AFB, OH: USAF, 1977
United States Department of Defense. Human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment, and facilities (MIL-STD-142C). Washington, DC: DOD, 1981(a)
United States Department of Defense. Human factors engineering guide for army material (MIL-HDBK-759A). Washington, DC:DOD, 1981(b)
Gilmore WE. Human engineering guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of video display units (NUREG-CR-4227). Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1985
Helander M, ed. Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), 1988
Norman DA, Draper SW, eds. User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986
Norman DA. The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books, 1988
Norman DA. Design rules based on analyses of human error. Communications ACM 1983;26:254–258
Monk A. Mode errors: a user-centered analysis and some preventative measures using keying-contingent sound. Int J Man Machine Studies 1986;24:313–327
Lewis C, Norman DA. Designing for error. In: Norman DA, Draper SW, eds. User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1986:411–432
Smith SL, Mosier JN. Guidelines for designing user interface software (technical report NTIS No A177 198). Hanscom Air Force Base, MA: USAF Electronic Systems Division (NTIS No. AD), 1986
Carroll JM, Mack RL, Kellogg WA. Interface metaphors and user interface design. In: Helander M, ed. Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), 1988:67–87
Gentner D, Stevens AL, eds. Mental models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983
Reason J. Human error. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1990 (in press)
Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Kitz R. An analysis of major errors and equipment failures in anesthesia management: considerations for prevention and detection. Anesthesiology 1984;60:34–42
Smith SL. Standards versus guidelines for designing user interface software. In: Helander M, ed. Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (North-Holland), 1988:877–889
Cooper JB. Towards prevention of anesthetic mishaps. In: Pierce EC Jr, ed. Analysis of anesthetic mishaps. Intl Anesthesiol Clin 1984;22:167–183
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Presented in part at the annual meeting of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, New Orleans, LA, October 1989.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cook, R.I., Potter, S.S., Woods, D.D. et al. Evaluating the human engineering of microprocessor-controlled operating room devices. J Clin Monitor Comput 7, 217–226 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01619263
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01619263