What we do matters: A Bold mission

What we do matters: A Bold mission

We are frequently reminded, as user experience (UX) and human factors (HF) researchers, that our work matters. We research products that impact millions of lives; whether it is to design a safer and easier-to-use medical device, a more efficient and less frustrating call center experience, or new features of an autonomous-driving car, our insight helps product development and commercialization teams deliver a better experience for their users.

When we founded Bold Insight, we wanted to go even further in making a positive impact. We structured the company to maximize employee retention through a unique employee-ownership model, support employee careers through mentorship-style training, give back to our local community, help amplify causes that our clients care about, and support employees’ personal philanthropic efforts. Two years later, we reflect on how we’ve lived up to those goals.

Living our Bold mission

It began with a company mission statement. There were a few ideas that were important to all of us: communicating that we care as much about our client’s product success as they do, having fun at work, and giving back. We hoped that this foundation would support an organization that clients would be proud to work with and employees would be proud to work for. Because of the enthusiasm, passion, motivation, and energy from day one, we’ve been able to build a team that fully supports our mission. And not just on paper, they execute on it daily!

For our clients: creatively curious

You can often find our team huddled around whiteboards brainstorming ways to tackle client questions or combining research methods in new ways to address research objectives while working within business constraints. We genuinely love what we do, and we love finding creative solutions to our clients’ challenges. We get just as excited about data (probably more excited) as our sponsors. We want our sponsors to be viewed as champions of exceptional end user experiences as much as we want their products to be successful.

For our world: giving back

This part of our mission we’ve really embraced. In just two years, Bold Insight has supported two teams in charity races, hosted three charity-focused events, and donated to 33 philanthropic organizations; these efforts showcase how we’ve prioritized this goal. There were many other ways to focus our time and money as a startup over the past 24 months, but we were serious about our mission and we made it happen. (Want to know about our next charity event? Sign up here!)

For our employees: supportive family

Earlier this year we challenged our team to come up with words that described Bold Insight, and “family” kept popping up. It feels so normal, but we forget that a supportive, encouraging, fun work environment is often hard to find. We are fiercely proud of our “Bold culture” and we guarantee after a visit to one of our offices, you’ll recognize it.

We pledge to ‘build careers, not jobs’. When you begin to think about professional support in this way, it shifts the narrative. We’ve made strategic decisions that foster employee retention, beginning with a company structure that includes employee-ownership opportunities. We also provide ongoing training that evolves with the employee and offers mentorship support to continue to grow. From this perspective, we hope that Bold Insight is not only where team members will love working, but also feel professionally fulfilled.

And this year was so busy, we almost forgot that we opened TWO shiny new offices this year! We chose to invest in these spaces because the employee experience is priority. (Take a peek inside!)

Mission statements help develop the work environment, steer strategic decision making, and offer shared values of the team. We are thrilled that we brought the words on paper to life over the last two years, and we look forward to seeing how much more we can do!

And, hey, we’re hiring! Check out available jobs to see if Bold Insight would be a good fit for your next (and hopefully final) job move!

Be the student: 3 tips to be a better UX research moderator

Be the student: 3 tips to be a better UX research moderator



Moderators should put themselves in the position of learning from the participant. Keeping a few tips in mind can facilitate this process and produce a more fruitful UX research session.

I recently attended a conference on human factors and medical devices. In one session, on the topic of moderating usability test sessions, the speaker used the phrase “Be the student” to describe the attitude the moderator should have when conducting this type of research. That is, while the participant is interacting with the device / app / website for likely the very first time and attempting to learn it, we, as moderators, should also be of the mindset to learn (not teach, or assume) about the participant-stimuli interaction for the first time.

This led to me to think about some of the other tips that we give to our UX researchers when we conduct moderation training:

  1. Flip questions back to the participant – I think I’ve used this tactic in just about every session I’ve ever moderated. The participant will invariably say something to the effect of, “I’m not sure how to do this; am I doing this right?” or “This feature should be changed, don’t you think?” And in every one of those cases, the question should be flipped right back to the participant with the moderator replying, “What do YOU think?”
  2. Use the participant’s terminology – when conducting a study on, for example, a syringe, I’ve seen participants refer to the flanges as the “finger grippers” or even “grippies.” Rather than correct the participant by informing them that they are using the wrong term, the moderator should adopt that term for the rest of the session when discussing the syringe and the process of the injection. This can apply to parts of a website or device or app where we, as the researchers, know the proper engineering or designer jargon, however, when talking with participants, we should be using the words they use.

  3. Leave questions open-ended – this one is a two-for-one and has two pieces of advice wrapped into it:
    • First, avoid yes/no questions. This is a basic tip for new moderators but it’s still very important. Simple, yes/no questions elicit simple yes/no answers. As qualitative researchers, we’re interested in the WHY and the HOW, so questions need to be crafted to go beyond the yes and no and get to the why and how.
    • Second, avoid baking the correct / preferred answer into the question. Instead of saying, “I noticed you did x instead of y” (which clearly states what you wanted the participant to do), say something along the lines of “I noticed you did x, tell me what you expected to happen when you did that.” This leaves the participant free to explain what they did rather than justify why they didn’t do what you were hoping for them to do.

All of this is to establish that the participant is the expert; not the moderator. Hence “Be the student.” The moderators are there to learn from the participants. And the participants are there to show us how the device should be used or at the very least, how they expect it to be used.

Care to share? UX considerations of the sharing economy for ridesharing, hospitality, and healthcare

Care to share? UX considerations of the sharing economy for ridesharing, hospitality, and healthcare



The sharing economy, primarily based in digital platforms, is poised for companies to stand out by delivering exceptional user experiences. 

Millions of people, by choice or circumstance, take advantage of the sharing economy, an economic model based on peer-to-peer sharing of goods and services. Some of the largest contributors and most well-known players in this game are companies that offer ridesharing, short-term accommodation, and, more recently gaining traction, healthcare, all through an online platform. And all, by offering a differentiated user experience and creating a seamless user interface, can better appeal to their users and pull ahead of their respective packs.

Ridesharing: Getting on board with UX

  • SITUATION: Ridesharing services, such as Lyft and Uber, have disrupted and redefined an industry once dominated by the taxi. Ridesharing services are convenient and affordable. These services rely equally on riders and drivers, creating a shared sense of choice and control.
    Uber, Lyft, and others like them are shaping the future of transportation. As they grow, they must evolve to meet the needs of both drivers and riders. User experience testing plays a critical role in keeping these services safe, convenient, and social while making them easy to use and inviting for new users.
  • WHITE SPACE: UX research and design can help with the features and design of the mobile app, making the GPS more usable, or even the design of the car itself.  For example, if a user has grocery bags with them, can the car be developed for a more adaptable interior?
    Currently, Uber and Lyft drivers need to own or lease a car to be a driver.  Could finding a way to allow people who do not own cars to become drivers create improved experiences for a new employee population?
    Perhaps the greatest white space where UX can impact this industry is expansion of the service offering beyond driver and rider to areas such as food delivery to urban delivery, freight transportation to autonomous driving. For success, all of these involve a multitude of new touchpoints that have entirely new mental models and user needs that Uber and Lyft could help address by talking with their drivers and riders.  

Hospitality: Building an exceptional user platform for hosts and renters

  • SITUATION: The sharing economy is also redefining the hospitality industry. Hotels, once the most viable option for travelers seeking short term stays, must now compete with Airbnb’s unregulated, sometimes untaxed, and often more flexible options. A 2019 study by Florida State University found that Airbnb’s exponential growth has contributed directly to a decrease in room prices and revenue in both luxury and midscale hotels.

    While hotels sometimes provide security, pools, fitness centers, and restaurants that are not often found in Airbnb listings, the cost per square foot is generally lower in AirBNB locations, appealing to travelers who don’t need traditional hotel amenities. The FSU study also found that travelers are showing an increasing demand for authenticity in lodging, which threatens hotel chains that sometimes don’t offer localized interactions and can feel too familiar to travelers hoping for new experiences.

  • GRAB MARKET SHARE: As with all peer-to-peer sales platforms, Airbnb offers only the tools and services to connect hosts to consumers. They rely on their hosts to provide consistently high-quality experiences during the consumer’s actual stay, making it particularly important for platforms like Airbnb and its competitors (eg, HomeAway, Vrbo), to provide excellent tools. These platforms must make the consumer comfortable and offer ample opportunities to provide feedback, which can be integral to identifying issues that could negatively impact the company’s brand. They must also provide tools to protect their hosts and give them the opportunity for success, ensuring they will not abandon the platform for an easily accessible competitor. All of this leads to building trust.

    Exploring the needs and expectations of both the hosts and renters through UX research is key to building that ideal platform that will stand out and grab market share and, ultimately, retain customers.

Healthcare: Understand the gaps of the industry

  • SITUATION: The healthcare industry is attempting to infiltrate the popular sharing economy. Instead of having to go to a doctor’s office, patients now have the option to receive healthcare in the comfort of their own home.Companies like Heal, which offers on-demand, house-call doctors starting at $99/hour, and Crowdmed, a crowdsourcing platform where users can receive help to diagnose unresolved symptoms from a pool of those with knowledge or experience with similar symptoms and healthcare professionals, are providing patients with easily accessible resources. The sharing economy goes beyond patients as well. Apps like Cohealo facilitate the sharing of healthcare equipment and technology between hospitals and healthcare facilities.
    There are multiple challenges in the healthcare sharing industry that may not be present in other industries. Users tend to be forgiving if their driver is late or if the home they rent is not clean. However, users hold healthcare to a higher standard.
    • Patient trust: In the healthcare industry, trust is particularly important. Users need to have trust in the doctors providing the services and that their healthcare information will be safe. Additionally, if a healthcare provider misses an appointment or prescribes an ineffective medicine, users may not be likely to use the service again. The challenge for the business (app/platform provider) is to build systems that cater to patients with this factor in mind.
    • Provider flexibility: The flexibility of providing services through a shared economy app may help draw healthcare providers to try it as an alternative or an addition to traditional in-office or in-hospital services. Facilitating this relationship between the provider and the business and ensuring that the flexibility offered by the app meets providers’ needs will be imperative to retention.
    • Payer experience: Another challenge for these businesses is the ease of billing and payments. When health insurance companies are introduced to the equation it adds a layer of complexity; the design must incorporate the needs of a third user group.
  • DESIGN TO FILL THE GAP: User research will help this growing industry learn exactly what needs must be addressed in the existing healthcare services space. What are users comfortable doing in their own home vs what do they think absolutely must be done in an office setting? What makes them feel that way? How can that gap be closed? 

Ultimately, due to the digital nature of the sharing economy, there is an opportunity for service providers to stand out with a great UX. And because trust is huge factor of success when it comes to these platforms, keeping all user groups involved in the development process will only increase that trust and help to build products that users can use seamlessly, safely, and effectively.

UX research reveals common concerns from HCPs about telehealth technology

UX research reveals common concerns from HCPs about telehealth technology



Our research has shown a trend in healthcare provider feedback regarding mHealth alerts and features. While generally positive about the concept, liability is top of mind with this user group and common questions were raised during testing.

HCPs and Telehealth

Part 1 ∙ UX research reveals common concerns from HCPs about telehealth technology

By Chris Goesel, RN and Kamila Lada

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and health IT developers are looking for ways to incorporate features into products that increase and improve communication channels between healthcare providers (HCPs), patients, and the patient care team. The goal is to facilitate quicker access to patient data and allow the care team to communicate remotely.

Advancements in technology have undeniably changed the way HCPs communicate with each other and the way they care for patients. While these changes may be viewed as positive by some, it is not the case for everyone. In the minds of HCPs, how does connectivity (and telehealth) improve the way they care for patients and collaborate with colleagues? What issues are solved vs. created? What problems are HCPs still seeking to solve in relation to the multitude of issues they face on a regular basis?

While conducting user experience (UX) research on mobile health (mHealth) applications, we noticed a trend in HCP feedback regarding the concept of alerts and telehealth that is not always positive and potentially indicative of a gap between user need and product design.

Why HCPs like the growing connectivity with their patients

During some recent UX research, HCPs said connectivity was a useful aide when it came to patient care. The ability to instantly obtain critical clinical information allowed them to diagnose and treat patients in a timelier manner, especially when on the go.

Further, patients may have various physicians (e.g., PCPs, specialists, etc.) assigned to their case and it is necessary for HCPs to communicate and discuss clinical findings with consulting doctors. The option to share specific findings across HCPs allows for immediate collaborative feedback resulting in better quality care.

However, while the idea of connectivity has its advantages, we also found HCPs raised some red flags about the technology.

Telehealth and alerts deemed problematic for some HCPs

Healthcare professionals are faced with many issues daily; patient safety, HIPAA compliance, and liability are top of mind. The idea of being accessible and having patient data and clinical information at their fingertips around the clock causes some HCPs to consider the potential downside of connectivity. Who is liable for responding to critical parameters when multiple HCPs have access to patient data at the same time? What if time-sensitive clinical information is missed when received as a mobile app notification? What if HCPs are overheard while dictating pertinent patient information to a mobile app? What if the wrong information is entered or shared such as medication dose, patient name, diagnoses, or test results? The idea of 24-hour accessibility made HCPs contemplate the potential shift in expectations for how they provide care to their patients.

The challenge for product designers is to keep these pros and cons in mind while creating a productive and safe environment for telehealth. Ultimately, doctors want to be doctors. They are in the profession to do no harm and engage in face to face with patients to improve their lives. The products designed to increase connectivity and make 24-hour anywhere care available to everyone should not be designed without the input from this user group who bring forward concerns and needs.

Our next blog in this series will dive a little deeper into liability and telehealth and its impact on the UX design of these applications. Stay tuned!

So, your recruit fell apart… now what?

So, your recruit fell apart… now what?



With the thousands of projects managed over the years, we feel like we’ve “seen it all”. While rare, in spite of the amount of preparation and planning, sometimes things don’t go as expected. Allison details tips on how to recover from a research participant recruit that falls into that category.

You have written the screener, kicked off your recruit weeks before the study, you keep in regular communication with the recruiter and things seem to be going well. You are at the Friday before your study and you only have one slot to fill. Your recruiter is confident and you are feeling good!

Imagine your dismay when testing hits and participants begin dropping like flies. The flu has taken over and those participants who are showing up are less than desired. Participants lied about their background and aren’t eligible to participate. They can’t find a parking space so decided to just not come. All these unanticipated events can take a seemingly ‘easy’ recruit and turn it into a bit of a challenge.

What do you do when you find yourself short on participants?

Over recruit and backups

Okay, so this is a preventative option. Over recruit when possible to avoid coming up short. If you need to have 15 completed sessions, schedule at least 18 participants. Recruiters local to the area often have an idea of how many participants you will need to recruit in order to fill your quota.

On a recent study in Atlanta, the recruiter recommended we schedule 19 participants in order to get 15 completed sessions. Due to the location of the facility, traffic, and parking we experienced a high no-show rate and certainly would have missed our quota had we not over-recruited. Luckily, we were prepared and ended the study on target. Trust your recruiter’s expertise!

When filling the recruit, you could also consider scheduling backup participants, typically referred to as ‘floaters’, that come to the testing facility but do not partake in the session unless there is a no-show, or another participant is ineligible. This may be more difficult for populations that require a higher compensation, such as surgeons, but paying for an few extra participants could save you a lot of time and money in the long run if you end up not filling your quota.

Keep in constant communication with the recruiter

This may seem obvious, but your first step when you notice participants not showing up or filling requirements should be to keep in regular contact with the recruitment company. As recruiters try to fill the empty slots, ask for consistent updates. Try to get to the root of the issue to prevent it from happening in future studies.

Take a closer look at requirements

Now that you are in a bit of a bind, it may be beneficial to loosen some of the screening requirements. Consider lowering your age range or modifying any requirements on demographics, if possible.

On a recent study this approach proved invaluable at filling a recruit that had otherwise stalled. I’d been recruiting users for a new home comfort app, but the study had very narrow demographic criteria and was targeted exclusively at iPhone users. I knew that if we were able to open the recruit up to Android users, we would easily be able to meet our quota. I decided to have a follow-up conversation with my client to better understand why we couldn’t recruit Android users. During our discussion he disclosed that the app would be released on Android shortly following the iPhone release and agreed to open the recruit to Android users which solved our problem.

Engage new resources

There is no shame in reaching out to more recruiters if you are finding the original company just isn’t getting the job done. Engage new resources as early as possible and let them know that you might need some help filling the slots. You can likely pay the recruiter per each session they fill.

If appropriate, ask participants if they know anyone that would be interested in participating in the study. Earlier this year, I was working on a study that targeted specialty pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. During the week of fieldwork, participants started dropping due to conflicts. My client originally asked that we only recruit a certain number of participants from the same workplace, but once we found ourselves in a bind, they released that requirement. After a session, when escorting participants from the testing room, we asked them to reach out to colleagues to see if they would be interested in participating in the study. By the end of the week, we reached our quota thanks in part to their referrals. Just remember to remind participants to keep the contents of the study confidential if they signed an NDA.

Coworkers may also be able to cast a net to friends or acquaintances to see if anyone qualifies to participate in the study. Reach out to them to see if they can lend a hand!

Extend testing hours

Testing often occurs during regular working hours of 9-5. If participants are being recruited on short notice, these hours may not work for them. Consider adding in evening sessions to create more opportunities for participation.

Increase compensation

A little more money can make a world of difference. Give participants incentive to take part in the study!


Remember, occasionally losing a few participants is an unavoidable part of doing user research: what matters most is how we respond to such situations. Recognition of what is happening along with rapid corrective action can pull a study back from the brink and help you fulfill your research goals!

7 insights from the 2019 HFES Health Care Symposium

7 insights from the 2019 HFES Health Care Symposium

By Korey Johnson and Jackie Ulaszek

The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) hosted its annual healthcare symposium last week in Chicago. Our team was out in force and had a great time connecting and reconnecting with friends and colleagues around the industry. If you missed the conference, in addition some great content, you also missed your chance to test your claw machine skills with us.

Aside from having fun, we also had the opportunity to hear about some great work that our human factors colleagues are doing around the industry, and present some of our own work. We attended many sessions and heard good discussion around FDA and regulatory perspectives, use of technology in research, interesting research methods employed, and cross-industry collaboration, among others.

Here are a few of the most interesting and useful insights our team brought back from the conference, most from the medical and drug delivery device track, but some general insights as well. Thanks to those responsible for the contributions summarized below, as well as those who made contributions elsewhere!

Statistics on HFE submission success rate

(From Pre-Symposium WK1: Improving the Safety & Effectiveness of Medical Devices Through Human Factors Considerations; MDD8 – CDRH/CDER FDA PANEL)



Note the common HFE deficiencies in submissions to help plan realistic timelines for human factors related efforts during development.

During the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) workshop, the Human Factors Pre-Market Evaluation Team (HFPMET) provided the usual overview of the FDA organization and regulatory review pathways. They also provided some hypothetical case studies to point out common Human Factors Engineering (HFE)-related things that go wrong in submissions. According to the HFPMET team, some of the more common deficiencies in submissions from an HFE perspective that require at least one request for additional information (and therefore delay the development process) included:

  • Incomplete / missing data for user groups or use environments (i.e., insufficient exploratory research or documentation thereof)
  • Incomplete / missing analysis of known use issues (i.e., insufficient post-market surveillance or documentation thereof)
  • Critical tasks not clearly identified, or not all critical tasks assessed (i.e., insufficient use-related task/risk analysis or documentation thereof)
  • Insufficient linkage between use-related risk analysis (URRA), critical task definition, and task success criteria
  • Reporting only performance rates and/or using preference ratings as a component of acceptance criteria

This year, the CDRH team went a step further and provided some statistics around HFE submissions. Of 184 510(k) HF/UE reviews in 2018, only 21 made it through without requests for additional information from the HFPMET reviewer. Of 157 Q-Subs, only 6 resulted in agreement on a human factors validation protocol. Not surprisingly, these 6 are all included in the 21 submissions that did not require additional information. These types of statistics can be useful to highlight the importance of planning for realistic timelines around human factors-related efforts during development, and we are looking forward to seeing more of this type of reporting from the FDA in the future.

Interesting regulatory and legal perspectives




Applicants in the FDA’s Pre-Cert Program for SaMD will be assessed on the extent to which they have robust human factors processes in place, and the FDA is seeking input from industry to help define how a manufacturer can demonstrate this!



Trying to design to avoid litigation makes no sense – litigation will happen regardless. But acknowledging this eventuality can serve as another arrow in the quiver for human factors practitioners vying for the resources to document a robust human factors effort during product development.



The general message for the largely US-based audience from the EU-based speaker regarding the new EU MDR was to keep calm and carry on.

There were a few panels and presentations that highlighted forward-looking regulatory / legal perspectives.

In one Bold Insight-led panel, human factors and regulatory experts from industry and the FDA described the Software As a Medical Device (SaMD) Pre-Certification Program, focusing largely on the Excellence Appraisals that will be required in order for a manufacturer of SaMD to become pre-certified. The panelists addressed the question – What does “good human factors” look like from an organizational perspective and what types of processes and metrics can manufacturers present during an Excellence Appraisal to demonstrate a culture of quality and excellence as it pertains to human factors? The panel was intended to be informational for those unfamiliar with the Pre-Cert Program, as well as a call to action for the entire HF community to contribute their examples of organizational processes and metrics directly to the FDA docket for the program. (This is a topic we have been following closely; read one of our past posts, FDA’s digital health precertification program emphasizes importance of post-market surveillance, and find more information available about the program on the FDA’s website.)

In another Bold Insight-led panel, instructional material was discussed from the perspective of human factors experts contributing to the design of the materials, and the perspective of litigators and expert testimony from the HF domain. The intent of the panel was to provide the predominantly development-focused attendees with the novel perspective of how documented human factors efforts during development can help protect a manufacturer from liability in future litigation. The attendees were presented with a number of fascinating (and in most cases, tragic) examples of cases where design for safe and effective use was called into question during litigation. The take home message was that trying to design to avoid litigation makes no sense – litigation will happen regardless. But acknowledging this eventuality can serve as another arrow in the quiver for human factors practitioners vying for the resources to document a robust human factors effort during product development.

Finally, an update was provided on the new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR). The general message for the largely US-based audience from the EU-based speaker was – keep calm and carry on. The new MDR is largely bringing medical device regulation in the EU into more alignment with how the FDA regulates medical devices in the US, at least from a human factors perspective. Under the new regulation, “The new rules significantly tighten the controls to ensure that medical devices are safe and effective and at the same time foster innovation and improve the competitiveness of the medical device sector” (http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-848_en.htm). This initiative will be enforced starting in 2020, with all medical products needing to be recertified by 2024 at the latest.

Use of VR in research




The industry is increasingly incorporating VR and/or AR into device prototyping and research deliverables with positive results.

While virtual reality (VR) has been leveraged in many industries over the past several years, including healthcare, it is gaining traction not just as a tool to be used in the field, but also one to be used during research and development. Many universities are utilizing “mixed reality”, a combination of augmented reality (AR) and VR, as an advanced training tool. For example, overlaying patient data, such as the progression of a gunshot wound over time, on top of a physical mannikin and viewing these injuries through a headset while performing the physical actions on the mannikin. In research and development, device prototyping software can be easily integrated into a VR program to conduct expert evaluations and comparative analyses, as well as understand spatial relationships and context of use without the costly expense of physical prototypes.

Lastly, for contextual research, a demonstration was provided in one session of how stakeholders can be provided with a more impactful deliverable than a standard research report. By leveraging VR, stakeholders can review insights generated by the research as they virtually walk through the research conducted, jumping to physical locations to review research findings tagged to physical objects in the environment.

Training decay

(From MDD5 – DEVICE TRAINING PROGRAMS; Many posters, and others.)



As an industry, we are making progress towards a more consistent and practical approach to adequately simulating memory decay in operational context of use without unnecessarily burdening research timelines and budgets. But we still have a ways to go.

Of course, training decay was a popular topic in both the workshops and panels with the FDA, as well as in several other sessions and posters. Many perspectives were presented, including:

  • The cost associated with extended decay periods that may not be necessary.
  • The need to more effectively leverage seminal research such as the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve, as well as the extremely large body of memory-related research that has been conducted since the 1880’s in finding a reasonable solution for adequately simulating extended decay periods.
  • Primary research that is currently being conducted with support from the FDA to assess the extent to which performance decrements exist for variable decay periods in the context of training specifically for medical device use.

There was quite a bit more presented and discussed on this topic. We are making progress, and hopefully some of the ongoing initiatives will give us some recognized empirical basis for decay periods in medical device human factors research that adequately simulate operational context of use without unnecessarily burdening development timelines and budgets.

Cross-industry collaboration



While there seems to be increasing acknowledgement of the value that a strong human factors presence within hospitals and clinical networks offers, there were few solutions to overcome the budgetary constraints that often stifle this effort.

There seemed to be more discussion at this symposium around efforts to increase human factors presence within hospitals and clinical networks. Though many hospitals and clinics have recognized the importance of including human factors in their processes and procedures, many barriers for complete integration still exists. Both HF professionals and clinicians agree that what the other does is important but neither fully understands the ins and outs of the other role, making it challenging to find common ground for measuring improvement.

Hospitals with an HF champion have had the most successful integration; however, the role and impact of change may be limited depending on the champion’s leadership role in the organization. Even for hospitals that have the stakeholder buy-in and access to HF professionals, many times the HF expert or team is stretched thin across engagements and cannot attend to on-site demands.

Lastly, after all the above is considered, HF personnel working in hospitals most often do not have the budget necessary to seek external support when demands on the HF function are high. Most of the discussions we participated in and overheard throughout the symposium were focused on the recognition that this is an area for improvement, as opposed to discussions around solutions. However, there were a few promising cases where it seems that the right relationships have been formed to really get buy-in for human factors from a hospital administration perspective – hopefully this becomes more of a trend.

On the cross-industry collaboration front, hfMEDIC continued to gain momentum and interest as it organizes under the NSF’s Industry-University Cooperative Research Centers (IUCRC) Program. There are several pre-competitive research opportunities that routinely emerge at this conference and others, for which a vehicle such as hfMEDIC could be extremely valuable. We hope to support the development of this program and work with the existing members to drive research forward that will be of value to the industry as a whole.

What did you take away from the symposium?

These are just a few of the topics that stood out to our team, and there were many others! These also sparked discussion amongst our team:

  • Attention was drawn to the inadequacy of currently available ergonomic and biomechanical normative data for use in the design of medical devices (e.g., for specific patient populations).
  • Deception was used in a study presented to enhance the fidelity of simulated use, which sparked some interesting conversation within our team.
  • Some very interesting case studies were presented where stress was simulated with a high degree of fidelity.

And more! Let us know what your key takeaways were!

Pin It on Pinterest