open access
Human factors and usability of an incentive spirometer patient reminder (SpiroTimer™)
open access
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.
Keywords
incentive spirometry; human factors; innovation; SpiroTimer; respiratory


Title
Human factors and usability of an incentive spirometer patient reminder (SpiroTimer™)
Journal
Advances in Respiratory Medicine
Issue
Article type
Research paper
Pages
574-579
Published online
2020-12-17
DOI
10.5603/ARM.a2020.0189
Pubmed
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


- Eltorai AEM, Baird GL, Pangborn J, et al. Financial impact of incentive spirometry. Inquiry. 2018; 55: 46958018794993.
- 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.
- 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.
- Chen J, Eltorai AEM. Incentive spirometry after lung resection: the importance of patients' adherence. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 107(3): 985.
- Eltorai AEM, Baird GL, Eltorai AS, et al. Incentive spirometry adherence: a national survey of provider perspectives. Respir Care. 2018; 63(5): 532–537.
- 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.
- 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].
- 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.
- Borowski M, Görges M, Fried R, et al. Medical device alarms. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2011; 56(2): 73–83.
- Branaghan RJ. Human factors in medical device design: methods, principles, and guidelines. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2018; 30(2): 225–236.
- North B. The growing role of human factors and usability engineering for medical devices. What’s required in the new regulatory landscape. 2015.