A prospective study on the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESUnlike for intensive care unit and home mechanical ventilators, no study has evaluated the user-friendliness of the recently introduced new anaesthesia workstations. METHODSWe performed a prospective study to evaluate the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations, w...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of anaesthesiology 2008-08, Vol.25 (8), p.634-641 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 641 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 634 |
| container_title | European journal of anaesthesiology |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Pouzeratte, Y. Sebbane, M. Jung, B. Delay, J.-M. Eliet, J. Eledjam, J.-J. Capdevila, X. Jaber, S. |
| description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESUnlike for intensive care unit and home mechanical ventilators, no study has evaluated the user-friendliness of the recently introduced new anaesthesia workstations.
METHODSWe performed a prospective study to evaluate the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations, which were categorized into two groupsfirst-generation (Kion) and second-generation (Avance, Felix and Primus). Twenty users (12 nurse-anaesthetists and 8 anaesthesiologists) from three different anaesthesia departments at the same univeristy hospital participated in the study. The user-friendliness scale evaluated 10 criteria, including two design and monitoring criteria, four maintenance criteria and four ventilation use criteria. Each criterion was evaluated from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent).
RESULTSThe mean score obtained for the first-generation workstation was lower than those obtained for the three second-generation workstations (P < 0.05). No significant differences in the overall user-friendliness score was observed for the three second-generation workstations. The first-generation workstation obtained a significantly lower score than the three second-generation workstations for the design criteria (P < 0.01). For the screen criteria, the highest score was obtained by Felix, which has the largest screen and associated characters. For the main maintenance criteria, Kion and Felix obtained the lowest scores. No significant differences between the four anaesthesia workstations were found for only three of the user-friendliness criteria (self-test, alarms and settings).
CONCLUSIONSAnaesthesia machines have benefited from considerable advances in design and technology. This novel user-friendliness scale revealed that the most recent workstations were more appreciated by users than the first-generation of anaesthesia workstations. This user-friendliness scale may help the anaesthetic staff to ‘consensuallyʼ choose the future workstation for their anaesthesia department. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S0265021508004043 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69277754</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0265021508004043</cupid><sourcerecordid>69277754</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-995cc200356f229bca68a6b3fe6013fc21f5c64baab279e7d7fa1a014ad453f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1q3DAUhUVJaCbTPkA3QXSRndurf3sZQv5gShdp10KWrzpOPPZUsjPM21dmBgIpWQl0v3v0cUTIFwbfGDDz_RG4VsCZghJAghQfyIIJrQoupD4hi3lczPMzcp7SEwCovPeRnLFSGia4XpAfV3Qbh7RFP7YvSNM4NXs69HRcI50SxiLEFvuma3tMiQ6BhmGK1PUOU0ZS6-huiM9pdGM79OkTOQ2uS_j5eC7J79ubX9f3xern3cP11arwUpWyqCrlPQcQSgfOq9o7XTpdi4AamAies6C8lrVzNTcVmsYExxww6RqpRNBiSS4Pudn975RV7KZNHrvO9ThMyeqKG2OUzODXN-BT9u-zm-VM59cqYzLEDpDPTaSIwW5ju3FxbxnYuWj7X9F55-IYPNUbbF43js1mQB6A3dCNGNNzN-0w2jW6blzb_BUgtBRFbqGcQ6GYr2ZhcXRxmzq2zR98NX7f5h8s-5br</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>216601977</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A prospective study on the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations</title><source>Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Pouzeratte, Y. ; Sebbane, M. ; Jung, B. ; Delay, J.-M. ; Eliet, J. ; Eledjam, J.-J. ; Capdevila, X. ; Jaber, S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pouzeratte, Y. ; Sebbane, M. ; Jung, B. ; Delay, J.-M. ; Eliet, J. ; Eledjam, J.-J. ; Capdevila, X. ; Jaber, S.</creatorcontrib><description>BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESUnlike for intensive care unit and home mechanical ventilators, no study has evaluated the user-friendliness of the recently introduced new anaesthesia workstations.
METHODSWe performed a prospective study to evaluate the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations, which were categorized into two groupsfirst-generation (Kion) and second-generation (Avance, Felix and Primus). Twenty users (12 nurse-anaesthetists and 8 anaesthesiologists) from three different anaesthesia departments at the same univeristy hospital participated in the study. The user-friendliness scale evaluated 10 criteria, including two design and monitoring criteria, four maintenance criteria and four ventilation use criteria. Each criterion was evaluated from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent).
RESULTSThe mean score obtained for the first-generation workstation was lower than those obtained for the three second-generation workstations (P < 0.05). No significant differences in the overall user-friendliness score was observed for the three second-generation workstations. The first-generation workstation obtained a significantly lower score than the three second-generation workstations for the design criteria (P < 0.01). For the screen criteria, the highest score was obtained by Felix, which has the largest screen and associated characters. For the main maintenance criteria, Kion and Felix obtained the lowest scores. No significant differences between the four anaesthesia workstations were found for only three of the user-friendliness criteria (self-test, alarms and settings).
CONCLUSIONSAnaesthesia machines have benefited from considerable advances in design and technology. This novel user-friendliness scale revealed that the most recent workstations were more appreciated by users than the first-generation of anaesthesia workstations. This user-friendliness scale may help the anaesthetic staff to ‘consensuallyʼ choose the future workstation for their anaesthesia department.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0265-0215</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2346</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0265021508004043</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18471326</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Adult ; Anesthesia, General - instrumentation ; Benchmarking - standards ; Equipment and Supplies, Hospital ; Equipment Design - standards ; Equipment Safety ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Ventilators, Mechanical - standards</subject><ispartof>European journal of anaesthesiology, 2008-08, Vol.25 (8), p.634-641</ispartof><rights>Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2008</rights><rights>2008 European Society of Anaesthesiology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-995cc200356f229bca68a6b3fe6013fc21f5c64baab279e7d7fa1a014ad453f63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-995cc200356f229bca68a6b3fe6013fc21f5c64baab279e7d7fa1a014ad453f63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18471326$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pouzeratte, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sebbane, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delay, J.-M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eliet, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eledjam, J.-J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capdevila, X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaber, S.</creatorcontrib><title>A prospective study on the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations</title><title>European journal of anaesthesiology</title><addtitle>Eur J Anaesthesiol</addtitle><description>BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESUnlike for intensive care unit and home mechanical ventilators, no study has evaluated the user-friendliness of the recently introduced new anaesthesia workstations.
METHODSWe performed a prospective study to evaluate the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations, which were categorized into two groupsfirst-generation (Kion) and second-generation (Avance, Felix and Primus). Twenty users (12 nurse-anaesthetists and 8 anaesthesiologists) from three different anaesthesia departments at the same univeristy hospital participated in the study. The user-friendliness scale evaluated 10 criteria, including two design and monitoring criteria, four maintenance criteria and four ventilation use criteria. Each criterion was evaluated from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent).
RESULTSThe mean score obtained for the first-generation workstation was lower than those obtained for the three second-generation workstations (P < 0.05). No significant differences in the overall user-friendliness score was observed for the three second-generation workstations. The first-generation workstation obtained a significantly lower score than the three second-generation workstations for the design criteria (P < 0.01). For the screen criteria, the highest score was obtained by Felix, which has the largest screen and associated characters. For the main maintenance criteria, Kion and Felix obtained the lowest scores. No significant differences between the four anaesthesia workstations were found for only three of the user-friendliness criteria (self-test, alarms and settings).
CONCLUSIONSAnaesthesia machines have benefited from considerable advances in design and technology. This novel user-friendliness scale revealed that the most recent workstations were more appreciated by users than the first-generation of anaesthesia workstations. This user-friendliness scale may help the anaesthetic staff to ‘consensuallyʼ choose the future workstation for their anaesthesia department.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Anesthesia, General - instrumentation</subject><subject>Benchmarking - standards</subject><subject>Equipment and Supplies, Hospital</subject><subject>Equipment Design - standards</subject><subject>Equipment Safety</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Ventilators, Mechanical - standards</subject><issn>0265-0215</issn><issn>1365-2346</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1q3DAUhUVJaCbTPkA3QXSRndurf3sZQv5gShdp10KWrzpOPPZUsjPM21dmBgIpWQl0v3v0cUTIFwbfGDDz_RG4VsCZghJAghQfyIIJrQoupD4hi3lczPMzcp7SEwCovPeRnLFSGia4XpAfV3Qbh7RFP7YvSNM4NXs69HRcI50SxiLEFvuma3tMiQ6BhmGK1PUOU0ZS6-huiM9pdGM79OkTOQ2uS_j5eC7J79ubX9f3xern3cP11arwUpWyqCrlPQcQSgfOq9o7XTpdi4AamAies6C8lrVzNTcVmsYExxww6RqpRNBiSS4Pudn975RV7KZNHrvO9ThMyeqKG2OUzODXN-BT9u-zm-VM59cqYzLEDpDPTaSIwW5ju3FxbxnYuWj7X9F55-IYPNUbbF43js1mQB6A3dCNGNNzN-0w2jW6blzb_BUgtBRFbqGcQ6GYr2ZhcXRxmzq2zR98NX7f5h8s-5br</recordid><startdate>200808</startdate><enddate>200808</enddate><creator>Pouzeratte, Y.</creator><creator>Sebbane, M.</creator><creator>Jung, B.</creator><creator>Delay, J.-M.</creator><creator>Eliet, J.</creator><creator>Eledjam, J.-J.</creator><creator>Capdevila, X.</creator><creator>Jaber, S.</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><general>European Society of Anaesthesiology</general><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200808</creationdate><title>A prospective study on the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations</title><author>Pouzeratte, Y. ; Sebbane, M. ; Jung, B. ; Delay, J.-M. ; Eliet, J. ; Eledjam, J.-J. ; Capdevila, X. ; Jaber, S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4584-995cc200356f229bca68a6b3fe6013fc21f5c64baab279e7d7fa1a014ad453f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Anesthesia, General - instrumentation</topic><topic>Benchmarking - standards</topic><topic>Equipment and Supplies, Hospital</topic><topic>Equipment Design - standards</topic><topic>Equipment Safety</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Ventilators, Mechanical - standards</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pouzeratte, Y.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sebbane, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Delay, J.-M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eliet, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eledjam, J.-J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Capdevila, X.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jaber, S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of anaesthesiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pouzeratte, Y.</au><au>Sebbane, M.</au><au>Jung, B.</au><au>Delay, J.-M.</au><au>Eliet, J.</au><au>Eledjam, J.-J.</au><au>Capdevila, X.</au><au>Jaber, S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A prospective study on the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations</atitle><jtitle>European journal of anaesthesiology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Anaesthesiol</addtitle><date>2008-08</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>634</spage><epage>641</epage><pages>634-641</pages><issn>0265-0215</issn><eissn>1365-2346</eissn><abstract>BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESUnlike for intensive care unit and home mechanical ventilators, no study has evaluated the user-friendliness of the recently introduced new anaesthesia workstations.
METHODSWe performed a prospective study to evaluate the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations, which were categorized into two groupsfirst-generation (Kion) and second-generation (Avance, Felix and Primus). Twenty users (12 nurse-anaesthetists and 8 anaesthesiologists) from three different anaesthesia departments at the same univeristy hospital participated in the study. The user-friendliness scale evaluated 10 criteria, including two design and monitoring criteria, four maintenance criteria and four ventilation use criteria. Each criterion was evaluated from 0 (poor) to 10 (excellent).
RESULTSThe mean score obtained for the first-generation workstation was lower than those obtained for the three second-generation workstations (P < 0.05). No significant differences in the overall user-friendliness score was observed for the three second-generation workstations. The first-generation workstation obtained a significantly lower score than the three second-generation workstations for the design criteria (P < 0.01). For the screen criteria, the highest score was obtained by Felix, which has the largest screen and associated characters. For the main maintenance criteria, Kion and Felix obtained the lowest scores. No significant differences between the four anaesthesia workstations were found for only three of the user-friendliness criteria (self-test, alarms and settings).
CONCLUSIONSAnaesthesia machines have benefited from considerable advances in design and technology. This novel user-friendliness scale revealed that the most recent workstations were more appreciated by users than the first-generation of anaesthesia workstations. This user-friendliness scale may help the anaesthetic staff to ‘consensuallyʼ choose the future workstation for their anaesthesia department.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><pmid>18471326</pmid><doi>10.1017/S0265021508004043</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0265-0215 |
| ispartof | European journal of anaesthesiology, 2008-08, Vol.25 (8), p.634-641 |
| issn | 0265-0215 1365-2346 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69277754 |
| source | Journals@Ovid Ovid Autoload; MEDLINE |
| subjects | Adult Anesthesia, General - instrumentation Benchmarking - standards Equipment and Supplies, Hospital Equipment Design - standards Equipment Safety Female Humans Male Middle Aged Prospective Studies Statistics, Nonparametric Ventilators, Mechanical - standards |
| title | A prospective study on the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T20%3A47%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20prospective%20study%20on%20the%20user-friendliness%20of%20four%20anaesthesia%20workstations&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20anaesthesiology&rft.au=Pouzeratte,%20Y.&rft.date=2008-08&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=634&rft.epage=641&rft.pages=634-641&rft.issn=0265-0215&rft.eissn=1365-2346&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0265021508004043&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69277754%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=216601977&rft_id=info:pmid/18471326&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0265021508004043&rfr_iscdi=true |