open access

Vol 88, No 6 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-12-17
Submitted: 2020-06-30
Accepted: 2020-09-08
Get Citation

Human factors and usability of an incentive spirometer patient reminder (SpiroTimer™)

Joshua Pangborn, Layla Kazemi, Adam E. M. Eltorai
DOI: 10.5603/ARM.a2020.0189
·
Pubmed: 33393650
·
Adv Respir Med 2020;88(6):574-579.

open access

Vol 88, No 6 (2020)
ORIGINAL PAPERS
Published online: 2020-12-17
Submitted: 2020-06-30
Accepted: 2020-09-08

Abstract

Introduction: To address the problem of incentive spirometry (IS) noncompliance, a use-tracking IS reminder device (SpiroTimer™) was developed. In a recent randomized clinical trial, the SpiroTimer™ improved IS use compliance, length of stay, and mortality. For successful, safe, and effective implementation of a new medical device, human factors and usability must be evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the SpiroTimer™’s human factors as they pertain to intended users, use environments, and uses. Material and methods: Immediately following the completion of the randomized clinical trial of the SpiroTimer™, before the providers were informed of the results of the study, a human factors and usability survey was distributed in-person to all nurses involved in the trial. Variations in nurse user perspectives were evaluated.
Results: A total of 52 nurses (100% response rate) completed the survey. In general, most nurses felt IS use compliance is poor (65%; 34/52, p = 0.0265) and should be improved (94%; 49/52, p < 0.001). Nurses agreed the SpiroTimer™ ameliorated patient IS use compliance (82%; 41/50, p < 0.001), IS effectiveness (74 %; 37/50, p < 0.001), and patient engagement in their own care (88%; 44/ 50, p < 0.001). Nurses reported the SpiroTimer™ helped remind them to work with their patients on IS (70%; 35/50, p = 0.0047) while reducing the number of times they had to remind their patients to use their IS (70%; 35/50, p = 0.0047). They felt that they would use the SpiroTimer™ with all their patients (82%; 41/50, p < 0.001) and that they would recommend the SpiroTimer™ to a colleague (74%; 37/50, p < 0.001). Ultimately, most nurses believed the SpiroTimer™ should become part of routine patient care (78%; 39/50, p < 0.001).
Discussion: For a new medical technology to a medical device to be effectively implemented, human factors and usability must be demonstrated. Nurses believe the clinically effective SpiroTimer™ helps both patients and nurses and should become part of routine care.

Abstract

Introduction: To address the problem of incentive spirometry (IS) noncompliance, a use-tracking IS reminder device (SpiroTimer™) was developed. In a recent randomized clinical trial, the SpiroTimer™ improved IS use compliance, length of stay, and mortality. For successful, safe, and effective implementation of a new medical device, human factors and usability must be evaluated. This study aims to evaluate the SpiroTimer™’s human factors as they pertain to intended users, use environments, and uses. Material and methods: Immediately following the completion of the randomized clinical trial of the SpiroTimer™, before the providers were informed of the results of the study, a human factors and usability survey was distributed in-person to all nurses involved in the trial. Variations in nurse user perspectives were evaluated.
Results: A total of 52 nurses (100% response rate) completed the survey. In general, most nurses felt IS use compliance is poor (65%; 34/52, p = 0.0265) and should be improved (94%; 49/52, p < 0.001). Nurses agreed the SpiroTimer™ ameliorated patient IS use compliance (82%; 41/50, p < 0.001), IS effectiveness (74 %; 37/50, p < 0.001), and patient engagement in their own care (88%; 44/ 50, p < 0.001). Nurses reported the SpiroTimer™ helped remind them to work with their patients on IS (70%; 35/50, p = 0.0047) while reducing the number of times they had to remind their patients to use their IS (70%; 35/50, p = 0.0047). They felt that they would use the SpiroTimer™ with all their patients (82%; 41/50, p < 0.001) and that they would recommend the SpiroTimer™ to a colleague (74%; 37/50, p < 0.001). Ultimately, most nurses believed the SpiroTimer™ should become part of routine patient care (78%; 39/50, p < 0.001).
Discussion: For a new medical technology to a medical device to be effectively implemented, human factors and usability must be demonstrated. Nurses believe the clinically effective SpiroTimer™ helps both patients and nurses and should become part of routine care.

Get Citation

Keywords

incentive spirometry; human factors; innovation; SpiroTimer; respiratory

About this article
Title

Human factors and usability of an incentive spirometer patient reminder (SpiroTimer™)

Journal

Advances in Respiratory Medicine

Issue

Vol 88, No 6 (2020)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

574-579

Published online

2020-12-17

DOI

10.5603/ARM.a2020.0189

Pubmed

33393650

Bibliographic record

Adv Respir Med 2020;88(6):574-579.

Keywords

incentive spirometry
human factors
innovation
SpiroTimer
respiratory

Authors

Joshua Pangborn
Layla Kazemi
Adam E. M. Eltorai

References (11)
  1. Eltorai AEM, Baird GL, Pangborn J, et al. Financial impact of incentive spirometry. Inquiry. 2018; 55: 46958018794993.
  2. Martin TJ, Eltorai AS, Dunn R, et al. Clinical management of rib fractures and methods for prevention of pulmonary complications: A review. Injury. 2019; 50(6): 1159–1165.
  3. Eltorai AEM, Szabo AL, Antoci V, et al. Clinical effectiveness of incentive spirometry for the prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications. Respir Care. 2018; 63(3): 347–352.
  4. Chen J, Eltorai AEM. Incentive spirometry after lung resection: the importance of patients' adherence. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 107(3): 985.
  5. Eltorai AEM, Baird GL, Eltorai AS, et al. Incentive spirometry adherence: a national survey of provider perspectives. Respir Care. 2018; 63(5): 532–537.
  6. Eltorai AEM, Baird GL, Eltorai AS, et al. Effect of an incentive spirometer patient reminder after coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. 2019; 154(7): 579–588.
  7. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. (n.d.). Human Factors and Medical Devices. Available online: www.fda.gov/medical-devices/device-advice-comprehensive-regulatory-assistance/human-factors-and-medical-devices. [Last accessed at: 03.09.2020].
  8. Janice (Ginny) Redish, Randolph G. Bias, Robert Bailey, Rolf Molich, Joe Dumas, and Jared M. Spool. 2002. Usability in practice: formative usability evaluations - evolution and revolution. In CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’02). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 885–890. DOI:https://doi org/10. 1145; 506443: 506647.
  9. Borowski M, Görges M, Fried R, et al. Medical device alarms. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2011; 56(2): 73–83.
  10. Branaghan RJ. Human factors in medical device design: methods, principles, and guidelines. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2018; 30(2): 225–236.
  11. North B. The growing role of human factors and usability engineering for medical devices. What’s required in the new regulatory landscape. 2015.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Czasopismo Pneumonologia i Alergologia Polska dostęne jest również w Ikamed - księgarnia medyczna

Wydawcą serwisu jest "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl