Description
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1
Discussion 525 doctor Replies
Fahad I value your post and perspective on this. Many people, when considering ethics, think of the rule “do unto others as you would
have done unto you” or some sort of ethical code such as the Hippocratic Oath (Resnik, 2020). How do these professional
standards relate to health informatics?
Dr. C
Reference
Resnik, D.B. (2020, December 23). What is ethics in research & why is it important? National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis/index.cfm
Discussion 530 Student Replies
Shahad
Difference between Human Factors and Ergonomics
Separate yet related, ergonomics (ERGO) and human factors (HF) improve human-system interactions. How people think,
decide, and use technology is the focus of HF’s psychological and cognitive research. In contrast, ERGO focuses on physical
aspects of human-system interaction and designing workspaces, tools, and equipment that fit human physical capabilities and
restrictions. These disciplines provide a comprehensive strategy to improve patient care, worker well-being, and system
performance in healthcare settings, prioritizing accuracy, safety, and efficiency (Håkansson & Bjarnason, 2020). This study will
compare HF and ERGO, explain how they operate best together in healthcare, and give an example of how their combined
importance could enhance healthcare systems.
How Human Factors and Ergonomics are different.
Human factors (HF) and ergonomics (ERGO) are independent but interconnected sciences that study the complex interplay
between humans and systems, equipment, and environments. HF studies the cognitive and psychological aspects of human
performance in these interactions (Holden, et al., 2021). It covers perception, attention, memory, and decision-making. HF experts
study how people think and process information, especially while using technology or complicated systems. Their goal is to
optimize interactions by matching human strengths and limits.
On the other hand, while residing under the same umbrella of human-system interaction, ERGO takes a more specialized
approach. ERGO’s focal point is the physical dimension of these interactions. It revolves around the design of tools, equipment,
and workspaces, ensuring that they are harmoniously suited to individuals’ physical attributes, movements, and biomechanics
(Sawyer, et al., 2021). This involves considerations like posture, the mechanics of human activities, and the measurement of
physical dimensions (anthropometry). ERGO specialists aim to craft environments that minimize physical strain and discomfort,
creating spaces where individuals can operate efficiently and comfortably.
While HF and ERGO have their unique domains of expertise, they are inherently complementary. Integrating both disciplines
becomes essential in various contexts, such as healthcare, aviation, or manufacturing. In healthcare, for instance, understanding
the cognitive demands on healthcare professionals while using complex medical equipment (HF) must align with designing
ergonomic interfaces and workstations (ERGO) that reduce physical strain during prolonged procedures (Asan & Choudhury,
2021). This symbiotic relationship ensures that human-system interactions are mentally efficient and physically comfortable,
ultimately enhancing overall performance and safety. It is through this collaborative approach that HF and ERGO combine to
optimize the human-technology-environment interface, benefiting both individuals and the systems they engage with.
Why both Human Factors and Ergonomics complement each other in healthcare
HF and ERGO complement each other seamlessly in healthcare due to the intricate and high-stakes nature of healthcare settings.
Healthcare professionals often operate in complex, dynamic environments where the combined expertise of HF and ERGO is
invaluable. HF provides insights into the cognitive and psychological components of healthcare professionals’ performance,
assisting in the improvement of communication, information processing, and decision-making (Sawyer, et al., 2021. In contrast,
ERGO makes sure that the workstations, tools, and physical interfaces are ergonomically created to reduce physical stress, pain,
and the risk of musculoskeletal injuries. The two fields offer a holistic strategy for boosting patient safety, healthcare workers’
wellbeing, and system effectiveness.
Healthcare example
2
The critical healthcare example highlighting the indispensable synergy between Human Factors (HF) and Ergonomics (ERGO) is
in designing surgical suites and using surgical robots. In the field of minimally invasive surgery, surgical robots have become
increasingly common. These robots offer precise control and enhanced visualization for surgeons, allowing for smaller incisions
and quicker patient recovery times. However, their effective use hinges on seamless HF and ERGO principles integration.
HF experts can analyze the cognitive demands on surgeons when using these complex robotic systems. They consider factors like
hand-eye coordination, mental workload, and the usability of the robot’s interface. By understanding the psychological aspects of
robot-assisted surgery, HF specialists help design user-friendly interfaces that reduce the risk of cognitive overload during critical
procedures (Asan & Choudhury, 2021). On the other hand, ERGO specialists ensure that the physical aspects of the surgical suite
and the robotic system are optimized. This includes the ergonomics of the surgeon’s console, the placement of monitors, and the
adjustability of the robot’s arms. By designing the physical environment to minimize strain on surgeons’ bodies during prolonged
surgeries, ERGO experts contribute to surgeon comfort and prevent musculoskeletal injuries.
The critical nature of surgeries demands not only precision but also the well-being of the surgical team. In this context, the
combined application of HF and ERGO principles ensures that surgeons can perform intricate procedures with confidence,
accuracy, and minimal physical and mental fatigue, ultimately benefiting patient outcomes.
References
Asan, O., & Choudhury, A. (2021). Research trends in artificial intelligence applications in human factors health care: mapping
review. JMIR human factors, 8(2), e28236.
Håkansson, E., & Bjarnason, E. (2020, August). Including human factors and ergonomics in requirements engineering for digital
work environments. In 2020 IEEE First International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Well-Being, Aging, and Health
(REWBAH) (pp. 57-66). IEEE.
Holden, R. J., Abebe, E., Russ-Jara, A. L., & Chui, M. A. (2021). Human factors and ergonomics methods for pharmacy research
and clinical practice. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(12), 2019-2027.
Sawyer, B. D., Miller, D. B., Canham, M., & Karwowski, W. (2021). Human factors and ergonomics in design of A 3:
automation, autonomy, and artificial intelligence. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics, 1385-1416.
Nasser Reply 530
Discuss how Human Factors and Ergonomics are different.
An alternative term for the idea of ergonomics is “human factors.” Traditionally, the two are occasionally separated based on
the human being’s physical and psychological characteristics. While physical characteristics are more frequently linked to
ergonomics, psychological qualities are more frequently linked to human factors. However, the two names can ultimately be
regarded as synonyms. Whether you prefer the terms “human factors,” “ergonomics,” or “human factors and ergonomics (HF/E),”
a full practice necessitates knowledge from a variety of fields, including industrial design, psychology, medicine, occupational
health, physiology, and engineering ( The Difference between Human Factors and Ergonomics. 2020).
Explain why both Human Factors and Ergonomics complement each other in healthcare.
When designing and implementing new technologies, processes, workflows, occupations, teams, and sociotechnical systems,
human factors and ergonomics (HFE) are frequently neglected. HFE is widely acknowledged as a crucial discipline that can assist
in minimizing risks that cause patient falls, reduce or mitigate prescription errors, and improve the design and implementation of
health IT. The International Ergonomics Association states that “Ergonomics (or human factors)i is the scientific discipline
concerned with the understanding of the interactions among humans and other elements of a system, and the profession that
applies theoretical principles, data, and methods to design in order to optimize human well-being and overall system
performance.” The goal of HFE-based system design is to enhance patient safety as well as overall system performance, including
wellbeing (e.g., clinician and patient satisfaction). According to the HFE perspective, patient safety initiatives should not only
decrease and mitigate medical errors and enhance patient safety, but also enhance human wellbeing by increasing things like job
satisfaction, motivation, and technological acceptance. For instance, from the HFE perspective, patient safety initiatives that add
to clinicians’ already heavy workloads would not be deemed to be effectively designed (Carayon et al., 2014).
Provide a healthcare example of why the application of both is critical
A HFE technique was employed to identify and classify patient safety risks in cardiovascular ORs. Step 1: cardiovascular OR
work system hazards identification A team of researchers from various fields, including clinical medicine, health services
research, human factors engineering, industrial psychology, and organizational sociology, identified patient safety hazards in five
hospitals through observations, contextual inquiries, and pictures of the environment and tools in cardiovascular ORs. Four team
members (health services researcher, cardiac anesthesiologist, nurse, and human factors engineer) observed each surgery, with
3
two present. Over 160 hours, 20 heart procedures and 84 contextual queries were monitored. All four team members analyzed
observation notes, contextual enquiries, and images to identify patient safety issues (Carayon et al., 2014).
Researchers employed deductive and inductive methods to analyze qualitative data and classify work system dangers in
cardiovascular surgeries. The SEIPS model was utilized deductively to identify high-level patient safety concerns, which were
subdivided based on data themes. There were 59 patient safety danger categories identified:
1. Care provider: variations in procedures, inappropriate conduct; 2. Task: increased workload, workflow interruptions; 3.
Tools/Technologies: usability issues, delayed availability; 4. Physical environment: limited space, equipment arrangement; 5.
Organization: lack of patient safety culture, poor communication. 6. Processes: lack of evidence-based methods and inadequate
supply chain management.
The study suggests system redesign to address patient safety hazards, including standardizing care, training providers, utilizing
proactive risk assessment, simulating OR layouts, and implementing recommended communication practices like repeat back
(Carayon et al., 2014).
References
The Difference between Human Factors and Ergonomics. (2020, August 6,). https://www.coeh.berkeley.edu/the-differencebetween-human-factors-and-ergonomics
Carayon, P., Xie, A., & Kianfar, S. (2014). Human factors and ergonomics as a patient safety practice. BMJ Quality & Safety,
23(3), 196-205.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
