Ultrasound machine comparison an evaluation of ergonomic design, data management, ease of use, and image quality

Kimberly P. Wynd, Hugh M. Smith, Adam K. Jacob, Laurence C. Torsher, Sandra L. Kopp, James R. Hebl

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The use of ultrasound technology for vascular access and regional anesthesia is gaining widespread acceptance among anesthesia providers. As a result, many group practices and medical institutions are considering purchasing ultrasound equipment. Currently, comparative information regarding the ergonomic design, physical and adjustable features, data management, ease of use, cost, and image quality of various ultrasound machines is not available. The primary goal of this investigation was to develop an objective process of evaluating ultrasound equipment before purchase. The process of evaluation used in the current investigation may be used when comparing a variety of medical technologies. Methods: A randomized, side-by-side comparative evaluation of 7 different ultrasound machine models was performed. Sixteen resident physicians without prior ultrasound experience (inexperienced providers) completed a formal evaluation of each machine model after performing a standardized machine configuration and performance checklist. Inexperienced providers and 10 faculty members experienced in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia evaluated the image quality of 2 standardized images acquired from each machine model. Results: Overall, evaluators rated questions on the machine evaluation form as "very good" or "outstanding" 70% or more of the time for all machine models. The largest, most complex ultrasound machine was rated as having the best image quality by both inexperienced and experienced providers. Ultrasound machine models with the simplest ergonomic design and user interface were rated highest by inexperienced study participants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)349-356
Number of pages8
JournalRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Volume34
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2009

Fingerprint

Human Engineering
Conduction Anesthesia
Technology
Equipment and Supplies
Group Practice
Checklist
Blood Vessels
Anesthesia
Physicians
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Ultrasound machine comparison an evaluation of ergonomic design, data management, ease of use, and image quality. / Wynd, Kimberly P.; Smith, Hugh M.; Jacob, Adam K.; Torsher, Laurence C.; Kopp, Sandra L.; Hebl, James R.

In: Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Vol. 34, No. 4, 07.2009, p. 349-356.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wynd, Kimberly P. ; Smith, Hugh M. ; Jacob, Adam K. ; Torsher, Laurence C. ; Kopp, Sandra L. ; Hebl, James R. / Ultrasound machine comparison an evaluation of ergonomic design, data management, ease of use, and image quality. In: Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 2009 ; Vol. 34, No. 4. pp. 349-356.
@article{0bb0a53e65e14a4a9e4d06034eed053b,
title = "Ultrasound machine comparison an evaluation of ergonomic design, data management, ease of use, and image quality",
abstract = "Background and Objectives: The use of ultrasound technology for vascular access and regional anesthesia is gaining widespread acceptance among anesthesia providers. As a result, many group practices and medical institutions are considering purchasing ultrasound equipment. Currently, comparative information regarding the ergonomic design, physical and adjustable features, data management, ease of use, cost, and image quality of various ultrasound machines is not available. The primary goal of this investigation was to develop an objective process of evaluating ultrasound equipment before purchase. The process of evaluation used in the current investigation may be used when comparing a variety of medical technologies. Methods: A randomized, side-by-side comparative evaluation of 7 different ultrasound machine models was performed. Sixteen resident physicians without prior ultrasound experience (inexperienced providers) completed a formal evaluation of each machine model after performing a standardized machine configuration and performance checklist. Inexperienced providers and 10 faculty members experienced in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia evaluated the image quality of 2 standardized images acquired from each machine model. Results: Overall, evaluators rated questions on the machine evaluation form as {"}very good{"} or {"}outstanding{"} 70{\%} or more of the time for all machine models. The largest, most complex ultrasound machine was rated as having the best image quality by both inexperienced and experienced providers. Ultrasound machine models with the simplest ergonomic design and user interface were rated highest by inexperienced study participants.",
author = "Wynd, {Kimberly P.} and Smith, {Hugh M.} and Jacob, {Adam K.} and Torsher, {Laurence C.} and Kopp, {Sandra L.} and Hebl, {James R.}",
year = "2009",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ac9e5b",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "349--356",
journal = "Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine",
issn = "1098-7339",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ultrasound machine comparison an evaluation of ergonomic design, data management, ease of use, and image quality

AU - Wynd, Kimberly P.

AU - Smith, Hugh M.

AU - Jacob, Adam K.

AU - Torsher, Laurence C.

AU - Kopp, Sandra L.

AU - Hebl, James R.

PY - 2009/7

Y1 - 2009/7

N2 - Background and Objectives: The use of ultrasound technology for vascular access and regional anesthesia is gaining widespread acceptance among anesthesia providers. As a result, many group practices and medical institutions are considering purchasing ultrasound equipment. Currently, comparative information regarding the ergonomic design, physical and adjustable features, data management, ease of use, cost, and image quality of various ultrasound machines is not available. The primary goal of this investigation was to develop an objective process of evaluating ultrasound equipment before purchase. The process of evaluation used in the current investigation may be used when comparing a variety of medical technologies. Methods: A randomized, side-by-side comparative evaluation of 7 different ultrasound machine models was performed. Sixteen resident physicians without prior ultrasound experience (inexperienced providers) completed a formal evaluation of each machine model after performing a standardized machine configuration and performance checklist. Inexperienced providers and 10 faculty members experienced in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia evaluated the image quality of 2 standardized images acquired from each machine model. Results: Overall, evaluators rated questions on the machine evaluation form as "very good" or "outstanding" 70% or more of the time for all machine models. The largest, most complex ultrasound machine was rated as having the best image quality by both inexperienced and experienced providers. Ultrasound machine models with the simplest ergonomic design and user interface were rated highest by inexperienced study participants.

AB - Background and Objectives: The use of ultrasound technology for vascular access and regional anesthesia is gaining widespread acceptance among anesthesia providers. As a result, many group practices and medical institutions are considering purchasing ultrasound equipment. Currently, comparative information regarding the ergonomic design, physical and adjustable features, data management, ease of use, cost, and image quality of various ultrasound machines is not available. The primary goal of this investigation was to develop an objective process of evaluating ultrasound equipment before purchase. The process of evaluation used in the current investigation may be used when comparing a variety of medical technologies. Methods: A randomized, side-by-side comparative evaluation of 7 different ultrasound machine models was performed. Sixteen resident physicians without prior ultrasound experience (inexperienced providers) completed a formal evaluation of each machine model after performing a standardized machine configuration and performance checklist. Inexperienced providers and 10 faculty members experienced in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia evaluated the image quality of 2 standardized images acquired from each machine model. Results: Overall, evaluators rated questions on the machine evaluation form as "very good" or "outstanding" 70% or more of the time for all machine models. The largest, most complex ultrasound machine was rated as having the best image quality by both inexperienced and experienced providers. Ultrasound machine models with the simplest ergonomic design and user interface were rated highest by inexperienced study participants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350141059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350141059&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ac9e5b

DO - 10.1097/AAP.0b013e3181ac9e5b

M3 - Article

C2 - 19574868

AN - SCOPUS:70350141059

VL - 34

SP - 349

EP - 356

JO - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

JF - Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine

SN - 1098-7339

IS - 4

ER -