New high-tech medical equipment is often too complex for the doctors and nurses who use it, according to a pair of studies conducted by researchers at Ohio State.The studies, which appeared in a recent issue of the Human Factors Journal, a publication of the Federal Aviation Administration revealed that poor human-computer relationships can create errors in the use of these devices.The studies also showed how medical professionals work around these difficulties to avoid making mistakes that could harm patients.David Woods, professor of industrial systems engineering and anesthesiology, wrote, “There is a real risk of error when designers create systems that possess every conceivable option, multiple modes, and cryptic displays.”In the first study, Woods and his colleagues observed how anesthesiologists interacted with a new anesthesia monitor in the operating room. In the second, they talked with home nurses who supervised pregnant women’s use of infusion pumps to prevent premature labor. In both studies, the researchers saw the same problems repeated, such as the need for caregivers to remember complex command sequences. “New technology can reduce error, but it can also create new opportunities for error,” Woods said. “And sometimes the new errors, though infrequent, may contribute to more catastrophic consequences.”Woods said the kind of errors he’s referring to don’t result from a malfunction in the medical device. “It’s not that the device is unreliable, but rather that the design of the device does not take into account how people need to interact with it. The problem is not a breakdown in the engineering of the device, it’s a human-computer breakdown,” Woods said.In both studies, no patients were harmed, but the medical professionals did have to tailor the devices to meet their needs and to avoid mishaps. But Woods said the fact that users had to tailor the devices at all indicates that the technology isn’t as user-friendly as it should be. One problem still remains. Because the devices don’t give good feedback, users may still have difficulty detecting errors in the future and correcting them in time. Woods and his colleagues hope to combine these and other results to show medical manufacturers and regulators how poor human-computer interaction in the design of infusion devices can lead to fewer errors. The goal is to help people understand the importance of human-computer interaction in effective medical products and develop user-centered medical systems to improve patient safety. “If we understand the sources of errors, we can find ways to make good devices even better,” Woods concluded.