Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Testing of a Usability Checklist for the Evaluation of Control Interfaces of Electrical Medical Beds

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. AI, Product and Service (HCII 2021)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNISA,volume 12778))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1471 Accesses

Abstract

The last few decades have seen the hospital environment become more and more technologically advanced with the development of advanced diagnostic and surgical tools. The beds have also undergone a radical transformation, thanks to the integration of electrical and electronic components, that have allowed the birth of the modern widespread electric beds. This work presents a checklist developed to test the usability of the pushbutton panels that control their movements, which could be useful in designing a controller capable of considering the needs of users such as caregivers and patients. The checklist items were created starting from the usability guidelines and then placed within an appropriate Nielsen heuristic. The tool thus designed was tested in a usability expert evaluation session with five experts. The data collected were the responses to the checklist, the experts’ comments, the notes collected during the procedure, the time to complete, and the severity and frequency of the problems detected. The results showed that the checklist could detect a substantial series of significant usability problems in a short time, which makes it an easily usable tool in the industrial field for rapid and valuable tests for future interfaces design. The usage of this developed checklist could be useful to design better control panels to facilitate both caregivers’ work and patients’ stay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Büssing, A., Falkenberg, Z., Schoppe, C., et al.: Work stress associated cool down reactions among nurses and hospital physicians and their relation to burnout symptoms. BMC Health Serv. Res. 17, 1–13 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2445-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hämmig, O.: Explaining burnout and the intention to leave the profession among health professionals - a cross-sectional study in a hospital setting in Switzerland. BMC Health Serv. Res. 18, 1–11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3556-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ma, X., Vervoort, D.: Critical care capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic: global availability of intensive care beds. J. Crit. Care 58, 96–97 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.04.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pecoraro, F., Clemente, F., Luzi, D.: The efficiency in the ordinary hospital bed management in Italy: an in-depth analysis of intensive care unit in the areas affected by COVID-19 before the outbreak. PLoS ONE 15, e0239249 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. ISO: Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 11: Usability: Definitions and concepts. ISO 9241-112018(E) (2018). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:9241:-11:ed-2:v1:en.

  6. Vainiomäki, S., Aalto, A.M., Lääveri, T., et al.: Better usability and technical stability could lead to better work-related well-being among physicians. Appl. Clin. Inform. 8, 1057–1067 (2017). https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2017-06-RA-0094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ghersi, I., Mario, M., Miralles, M.T.: From modern push-button hospital-beds to 20th century mechatronic beds: a review. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 705 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/705/1/012054

  8. Ghersi, I., Mariño, M., Miralles, M.T.: Smart medical beds in patient-care environments of the twenty-first century: a state-of-art survey. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 18, 1–12 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0643-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Who Invented Medical Beds - Medical Beds. http://www.medical-beds.co.uk/who-invented-medical-beds.html

  10. de Bruin, A.M., Bekker, R., van Zanten, L., Koole, G.M.: Dimensioning hospital wards using the Erlang loss model. Ann. Oper. Res. 178, 23–43 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-009-0647-8

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmid, F., et al.: Reduction of clinically irrelevant alarms in patient monitoring by adaptive time delays. J. Clin. Monit. Comput. 31(1), 213–219 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-015-9808-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gunningberg, L., Carli, C.: Reduced pressure for fewer pressure ulcers: can real-time feedback of interface pressure optimise repositioning in bed? Int. Wound J. 13, 774–779 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hong, Y.S.: Smart care beds for elderly patients with impaired mobility. Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2018 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/1780904

  14. Surma-aho, A., Hölttä-Otto, K., Nelskylä, K., Lindfors, N.C.: Usability issues in the operating room – towards contextual design guidelines for medical device design. Appl. Ergon. 90 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103221

  15. Bitkina, O.V., Kim, H.K., Park, J.: Usability and user experience of medical devices: an overview of the current state, analysis methodologies, and future challenges. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 76 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2020.102932

  16. Capodaglio, E.M.: Electric versus hydraulic hospital beds: differences in use during basic nursing tasks. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 19, 597–606 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2013.11077010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wiggermann, N., Rempel, K., Zerhusen, R.M., et al.: Human-centered design process for a hospital bed: promoting patient safety and ease of use. Ergon. Des. 27, 4–12 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804618805570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cai, H., et al.: A qualitative study on implementation of the intelligent bed: findings from a rehabilitation ward at a large Chinese tertiary hospital. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 90(1), 399–420 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-016-3375-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim, S., Barker, L.M., Jia, B., et al.: Effects of two hospital bed design features on physical demands and usability during brake engagement and patient transportation: a repeated measures experimental study. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 46, 317–325 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.10.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fudickar, S., Flessner, J., Volkening, N., Steen, E.-E., Isken, M., Hein, A.: Gesture controlled hospital beds for home care. In: Wichert, R., Mand, B. (eds.) Ambient Assisted Living. ATSC, pp. 103–118. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52322-4_7

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin, X., Zhang, Z.: Designing remote control of medical bed based on human factors. In: 2020 IEEE 7th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications, ICIEA 2020, pp. 838–841 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIEA49774.2020.9101944

  22. Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, pp. 249–256. Association for Computing Machinery (1990). https://doi.org/10.1145/97243.97281

  23. Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, pp. 413–414. Association for Computing Machinery (1994). https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260531

  24. Keevil, B.: Measuring the usability index of your Web site. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, SIGDOC 1998, pp. 271–277. ACM Press, New York (1998). https://doi.org/10.1145/296336.296394

  25. De Paiva Guimarães, M., Martins, V.F.: A checklist to evaluate augmented reality applications. In: Proceedings of 2014 16th Symposium on Virtual and Augmented Reality, SVR 2014, pp. 45–52 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/SVR.2014.17

  26. Munoz, R., Barcelos, T., Chalegre, V.: Defining and validating virtual worlds usability heuristics. In: Proceeding of the International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society, SCCC, pp. 171–178 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC.2011.23

  27. Anderson, K., Burford, O., Emmerton, L.: App chronic disease checklist: protocol to evaluate mobile apps for chronic disease self-management. JMIR Res. Protoc. 5, e204 (2016). https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.6194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Inal, Y.: Heuristic-based user interface evaluation of the mobile centralized doctor appointment system: a case study. Electron. Libr. 37, 81–94 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-06-2018-0114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Weinger, M., Wiklund, M., Gardner-Bonneau, D.: Handbook of Human Factors in Medical Device Design (2010). https://doi.org/10.1201/b10439

  30. Nielsen, J.: Heuristic Evaluation Ten Usability Heuristics (2005). https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/

  31. Nielsen, J.: Severity Ratings for Usability Problems. Nielsen Norman Group (1995). http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-rate-the-severity-of-usability-problems/

  32. Inostroza, R., Rusu, C., Roncagliolo, S., Rusu, V.: Usability heuristics for touchscreen-based mobile devices: update. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Chilean Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 24–29 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1145/2535597.2535602

  33. Quiñones, D., Rusu, C.: How to develop usability heuristics: a systematic literature review. Comput Stand. Interfaces 53, 89–122 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The research project was partially supported by Malvestio Spa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, via Venezia 8, 31121, Padua, Italy

    Davide Bacchin

  2. Human Inspired Technology (HIT) Research Centre, University of Padova, via Luigi Luzzatti 4, 35121, Padua, Italy

    Patrik Pluchino, Valeria Orso & Luciano Gamberini

  3. Malvestio S.p.a., via Marconi 12D, 35010, Villanova di Camposampiero, PD, Italy

    Marcello Sardena & Marino Malvestio

Authors
  1. Davide Bacchin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrik Pluchino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valeria Orso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marcello Sardena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marino Malvestio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luciano Gamberini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Bacchin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Vincent G. Duffy

Appendix

Appendix

The complete list of the Checklist items is provided.

Visibility of system status

  1. 1.

    Pressing a key corresponds to immediate feedback from the push-button panel.

  2. 2.

    If present, the feedback provided is easily identifiable.

  3. 3.

    If present, the feedback provided takes place in multiple ways.

  4. 4.

    When a key is pressed, it provides tactile feedback.

  5. 5.

    It is easy to tell if the push of a button affects the bed.

  6. 6.

    Understanding when the movement has ended is easy.

Match between system and the real world

  1. 7.

    The movements that the bed can make are represented understandably by the buttons on the control panel.

Give the user control with comfort

  1. 8.

    Pushing the buttons does not require excessive physical effort.

  2. 9.

    It is always possible to use the push button panel while remaining in a comfortable position.

  3. 10.

    The push button panel can always be used with one hand.

Consistency and standard

  1. 11.

    The icons used are consistent with each other.

Error prevention

  1. 12.

    A single push of the button is enough to perform the desired movement until it ends.

  2. 13.

    The positioning of the push-button panel prevents accidental actions from being performed.

  3. 14.

    The keys for the safety positions are well identifiable.

  4. 15.

    The buttons are adequately spaced from each other.

  5. 16.

    The buttons have a surface that facilitates pressing.

  6. 17.

    The buttons are clearly visible even in darkness.

  7. 18.

    In case the wrong key is pressed, it is easy to return to the previous position.

Recognition rather than recall

  1. 19.

    The meaning of the icons is intuitive.

  2. 20.

    The icons have understandable symbols.

Flexibility, accessibility, and efficiency of use

  1. 21.

    The push-button panel is easily accessible.

  2. 22.

    The push-button panel is always visible.

  3. 23.

    The push-button panel can be easily grasped with both hands.

  4. 24.

    The travel of the buttons, i.e., the space between pressing the button and its activation, is adequate.

  5. 25.

    The height of the buttons is adequate.

  6. 26.

    The icons have both graphic and textual elements where needed.

Aesthetic and minimalist design

  1. 27.

    The icons used are aesthetically pleasing.

  2. 28.

    The icons used are large enough.

  3. 29.

    The materials used for the buttons are pleasant to the touch.

  4. 30.

    The materials used for the buttons are aesthetically pleasing.

Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors

  1. 31.

    It is easy to understand when the hand control is locked.

  2. 32.

    It is easy to understand when the hand control is off.

Help and documentation 

  1. 33.

    The documentation material is easily understandable.

  2. 34.

    The documentation material is necessary for the use of the bed control panel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Bacchin, D., Pluchino, P., Orso, V., Sardena, M., Malvestio, M., Gamberini, L. (2021). Development and Testing of a Usability Checklist for the Evaluation of Control Interfaces of Electrical Medical Beds. In: Duffy, V.G. (eds) Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. AI, Product and Service. HCII 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12778. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77820-0_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77820-0_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-77819-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-77820-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation