Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:11:50.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A prospective study on the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2008

Y. Pouzeratte ,
M. Sebbane ,
B. Jung ,
J.-M. Delay ,
J. Eliet ,
J.-J. Eledjam ,
X. Capdevila  and
S. Jaber
Y. Pouzeratte
Affiliation:
Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
M. Sebbane
Affiliation:
Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
B. Jung
Affiliation:
Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
J.-M. Delay
Affiliation:
Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
J. Eliet
Affiliation:
Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
J.-J. Eledjam
Affiliation:
Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
X. Capdevila
Affiliation:
Hôpital Lapeyronie, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
S. Jaber*
Affiliation:
Hôpital Saint-Eloi, Department of Anesthesia, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France
*
Correspondence to: Samir Jaber, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (DAR B), CHU de Montpellier, Hôpital Saint Eloi, 80 avenue Augustin Fliche, 34295 Montpellier Cedex 5, France. E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +33 467 33 72 71; Fax: +33 467 33 74 48
Get access

Summary

Background and objectives

Unlike for intensive care unit and home mechanical ventilators, no study has evaluated the user-friendliness of the recently introduced new anaesthesia workstations.

Methods

We performed a prospective study to evaluate the user-friendliness of four anaesthesia workstations, which were categorized into two groups: first-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).

Results

The 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).

Conclusions

Anaesthesia 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 ‘consensually’ choose the future workstation for their anaesthesia department.

Keywords

VENTILATORS MECHANICALANAESTHESIA GENERALEQUIPMENT SAFETYCHOICE BEHAVIOUREQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIESHOSPITAL
Type
Original Article
Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology , Volume 25 , Issue 8 , August 2008 , pp. 634 - 641
Copyright
Copyright © European Society of Anaesthesiology 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Jaber, S, Langlais, N, Fumagalli, B et al. Performance studies of 6 new anesthesia ventilators: bench tests. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2000; 19 (1): 16–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Jaber, S, Tassaux, D, Sebbane, M et al. Performance characteristics of five new anesthesia ventilators and four intensive care ventilators in pressure support mode: A comparative bench study. Anesthesiology 2006; 105 (5): 944–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Otteni, JC, Ancellin, J, Cazalaa, JB, Feiss, P. Anesthesia equipment: fresh gas delivery systems. I. Mechanical systems with rotameters and calibrated vaporizers. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 1999; 18 (9): 956–975.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Tung, A, Drum, M, Morgan, S. Effect of inspiratory time on tidal volume delivery in anesthesia and intensive care unit ventilators operating in pressure control mode. J Clin Anesth 2005; 17: 8–15.Google Scholar
5.Weinger, MB, Englund, CE. Ergonomic and human factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating room environment. Anesthesiology 1990; 73 (5): 995–1021.Google Scholar
6.Richard, JC, Carlucci, A, Breton, L et al. Bench testing of pressure support ventilation with three different generations of ventilators. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28 (8): 1049–1057.Google Scholar
7.Zanetta, G, Robert, D, Guerin, C. Evaluation of ventilators used during transport of ICU patients – a bench study. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28 (4): 443–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Miyoshi, E, Fujino, Y, Mashimo, T, Nishimura, M. Performance of transport ventilator with patient-triggered ventilation. Chest 2000; 118: 1109–1115.Google Scholar
9.Battisti, A, Tassaux, D, Janssens, J, Michotte, J, Jaber, S, Jolliet, P. Performance characteristics of ten mechanical ventilators in pressure support: a comparative bench study. Chest 2005; 127: 1784–1792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Bunburaphong, T, Imanaka, H, Nishimura, M, Hess, D, Kacmarek, R. Performance characteristics of bilevel pressure ventilators: a lung model study. Chest 1997; 111: 1050–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lofaso, F, Brochard, L, Hang, T, Lorino, H, Harf, A, Isabey, D. Home versus intensive care pressure support devices. Experimental and clinical comparison. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 153: 1591–1599.Google Scholar
12.Tassaux, D, Strasser, S, Fonseca, S, Dalmas, E, Jolliet, P. Comparative bench study of triggering, pressurization, and cycling between the home ventilator VPAP II and three ICU ventilators. Intensive Care Med 2002; 28 (9): 1254–1261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Arbous, MS, Meursing, AE, van Kleef, JW et al. Impact of anesthesia management characteristics on severe morbidity and mortality. Anesthesiology 2005; 102 (2): 257–268.Google Scholar
14.Larson, E, Nuttall, G, Ogren, B et al. A prospective study on anesthesia machine fault identification. Anesth Analg 2007; 104: 154–156.Google Scholar
15.Jaber, S, Capdevila, X. Artificial ventilators: state of the art. ITBM-RBM 2005; 26: 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Bridgman, EA. New International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee on application of ISO 9000 to medical devices. Biomed Instrum Technol 1994; 28 (4): 325–330.Google ScholarPubMed
17.Richard, JC, Breton, L, Fartoukh, M, Brochard, L. Intensive care ventilators in 2002: technical aspects, pitfalls and assessment. Reanimation 2002; 11: 66–75.Google Scholar
18.Gonzalez-Bermejo, J, Laplanche, V, Husseini, FE, Duguet, A, Derenne, JP, Similowski, T. Evaluation of the user-friendliness of 11 home mechanical ventilators. Eur Respir J 2006; 27 (6): 1236–1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Cohen, MM, O’Brien-Pallas, LL, Copplestone, C, Wall, R, Porter, J, Rose, DK. Nursing workload associated with adverse events in the postanesthesia care unit. Anesthesiology 1999; 91 (6): 1882–1890.Google Scholar