An investigation into the impact of safety features on the ergonomics of surgical scalpels

In the case of surgical scalpels, blade retraction and disposability have been incorporated into a number of commercial designs to address sharps injury and infection transmission issues. Despite these new designs, the traditional metal reusable scalpel is still extensively used and this paper attempts to determine whether the introduction of safety features has compromised the ergonomics and so potentially the take-up of the newer designs. Examples of scalpels have been analysed to determine the ergonomic impact of these design changes. Trials and questionnaires were carried out using both clinical and non-clinical user groups, with the trials making use of assessment of incision quality, cutting force, electromyography and video monitoring. The results showed that ergonomic performance was altered by the design changes and that while these could be for the worse, the introduction of safety features could act as a catalyst to encourage re-evaluation of the ergonomic demands of a highly traditional product.

Ergonomics: chronological list of papers, 1956-1969

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

How does employer support and educational background effect an Ergonomics Practitioner’s awareness of the relationship between ergonomics and psychosocial hazard control?

There is a growning need to address psychological health and safety in the workplace. Ergonomics tends to be widely recognized for its physical applications, such as ¨office¨ and ¨manual materials handling¨ however the other domains of specialization of ergonomics (cognitive and organizational) appear to be less well known. This study evaluates the level of understanding that professionals who practice ergonomics have of the relation between ergonomics and the control of psychosocial hazards in the workplace. A survey was distributed to ergonomics practitioners and asked them about their awareness of the relation between ergonomics and workplace psychosocial hazard control. Ergonomists and human factors specialists demonstrated a greater awareness of this relationship than other allied occupational groups that also practice ergonomics, however they indicated that there may be difficulties in the “real world” applying these areas of knowledge into practice. Participants who demonstrated a high level of awareness of the relation between ergonomics and psychosocial hazard control demonstrated stronger organizational commitment than participants with a low awareness. Ergonomics practitioners who reported having employer support for professional development also demonstrated a higher degree of awareness of the relation between ergonomics and psychosocial hazard control, as did the professionals who had been practicing in the field the longest. This research provides some insight for professional associations for Ergonomists, employers of Ergonomists, and human resource professionals about how ergonomics practitioners perceive the ergonomics field and the profession as well as their employing organization.

Medical Device Development: the challenge for ergonomics

High quality, well designed medical devices are necessary to provide safe and effective clinical care for patients as well as to ensure the health and safety of professional and lay device users. Capturing the user requirements of users and incorporating these into design is an essential component of this. The field of ergonomics has an opportunity to assist, not only with this area, but also to encourage a more general consideration of the user during medical device development. A review of the literature on methods for assessing user requirements in engineering and ergonomics found that little published work exists on the ergonomics aspects of medical device development. In particular there is little advice available to developers on which issues to consider during design and development or recommendations for good practice in terms of the methods and approaches needed to capture the full range of user requirements. The Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare (MATCH) is a research collaboration that is working in conjunction with industrial collaborators to apply ergonomics methods to real case study projects with the ultimate aim of producing an industry-focused guide to applying ergonomics principles in medical device development.

Capturing User Requirements in Medical Device Development: The Role of Ergonomics

Measuring and fulfilling user requirements during medical device development will result in successful products that improve patient safety, improve device effectiveness and reduce product recalls and modifications. Medical device users are an extremely heterogeneous group and for any one device the users may include patients, their carers as well as various healthcare professionals. There are a number of factors that make capturing user requirements for medical device development challenging including the ethical and research governance involved with studying users as well as the inevitable time and financial constraints. Most ergonomics research methods have been developed in response to such practical constraints and a number of these have potential for medical device development. Some are suitable for specific points in the device cycle such as contextual inquiry and ethnography, others, such as usability tests and focus groups may be used throughout development. When designing user research there are a number of factors that may affect the quality of data collected including the sample of users studied, the use of proxies instead of real end-users and the context in which the research is performed. As different methods are effective in identifying different types of data, ideally more than one method should be used at each point in development, however financial and time factors may often constrain this.

Ergonomics as authoritarian or libertarian: Learning from colin ward's politics of design

Ergonomics is intrinsically connected to political debates about the good society, about how we should live. This article follows the ideas of Colin Ward by setting the practices of ergonomics and design along a spectrum between more libertarian approaches and more authoritarian. Within Anglo-American ergonomics, more authoritarian approaches tend to prevail, often against the wishes of designers who have had to fight with their employers for best possible design outcomes. The article draws on debates about the design and manufacturing of schoolchildren's furniture. Ergonomics would benefit from embracing these issues to stimulate a broader discourse amongst its practitioners about how to be open to new disciplines, particularly those in the social sciences.

Capability measurement for Inclusive Design

Understanding users' capabilities, needs and expectations is key to the domain of Inclusive Design. Much of the work in the field could be informed and further strengthened by clear, valid and representative data covering the full range of people's capabilities. This article reviews existing data sets and identifies the challenges inherent in measuring capability in a manner that is informative for work in Inclusive Design. The need for a design-relevant capability data set is identified and consideration is given to a variety of capability construct operationalisation issues including questions associated with self-report and performance measures, sampling and the appropriate granularity of measures. The need for further experimental work is identified and a programme of research designed to culminate in the design of a valid and reliable capability survey is described.

Beyond the user : use and non-use in HCI

For many, an interest in Human-Computer Interaction is equivalent to an interest in usability. However, using computers is only one way of relating to them, and only one topic from which we can learn about interactions between people and technology. Here, we focus on not using computers – ways not to use them, aspects of not using them, what not using them might mean, and what we might learn by examining non-use as seriously as we examine use.