Overview

International standard specifying usability engineering processes for medical devices to assess and mitigate risks from use errors, recognized by FDA and global regulators

IEC 62366-1:2015+AMD1:2020 represents the international standard for usability engineering of medical devices, providing a comprehensive framework for ensuring that medical devices can be used safely and effectively by their intended users. Formally titled "Medical devices — Part 1: Application of usability engineering to medical devices," this standard has become essential for medical device manufacturers worldwide seeking to prevent use errors that could lead to patient harm, meet regulatory requirements, and create devices that users can operate safely in real-world conditions. The standard, maintained jointly by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and recognized by regulatory authorities worldwide including the FDA, EU Notified Bodies, Health Canada, and the PMDA, establishes systematic processes for identifying, evaluating, and mitigating use-related risks throughout medical device development.

The Critical Importance of Usability in Medical Devices

Medical device use errors have been responsible for numerous serious injuries and deaths. High-profile incidents include insulin pump programming errors leading to overdoses, defibrillator interface confusion resulting in failed resuscitation attempts, infusion pump misconfiguration causing medication errors, surgical device misuse resulting in patient harm, and home-use devices operated incorrectly by patients with potentially fatal consequences. These incidents demonstrate that even well-intentioned, trained users can make errors when device interfaces are poorly designed, instructions are unclear, or use scenarios are complex.

The challenge is compounded by the diverse contexts in which medical devices are used. Healthcare environments range from highly controlled operating rooms with specialized personnel to chaotic emergency departments with time pressure and distractions, to patients' homes where users may have limited medical knowledge, impaired vision or dexterity, or cognitive limitations. Devices must function safely across this entire spectrum of use conditions. Furthermore, the user population for medical devices is expanding beyond traditional healthcare professionals to include patients, caregivers, and family members with varying levels of health literacy and technical sophistication.

IEC 62366-1 recognizes that usability is fundamentally a patient safety issue. The standard's primary objective is not to create devices that are merely easy to use or satisfying to use (though these are beneficial) but rather to ensure that devices can be used safely. This safety-focused approach distinguishes medical device usability engineering from consumer product usability, where user satisfaction and efficiency may be primary objectives. In medical devices, safety takes precedence, with effectiveness and user satisfaction as secondary considerations.

Harmonization of FDA and International Standards

IEC 62366-1:2015 represents a significant convergence of international standards and FDA regulatory expectations. Prior to this standard, medical device manufacturers faced divergent expectations between the FDA's Human Factors Engineering guidance and international IEC standards. The 2015 edition of IEC 62366-1 was developed in close collaboration with the FDA to create harmonized requirements acceptable to both FDA and international regulatory bodies.

In the United States, the FDA recognizes IEC 62366-1:2015+AMD1:2020 as a consensus standard, meaning manufacturers can declare conformity to the standard as part of their regulatory submissions. The FDA's own Human Factors Engineering guidance documents reference IEC 62366-1 and align with its methodology. This harmonization has simplified the regulatory pathway for manufacturers seeking global market access, allowing a single usability engineering program to satisfy requirements in the United States, European Union (under the Medical Device Regulation and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation), Canada, Australia, Japan, and other markets.

The terminology differs slightly between regions: what the FDA calls "Human Factors Engineering" (HFE), IEC 62366-1 calls "Usability Engineering" (UE). However, these terms are used interchangeably to describe the same discipline—the systematic application of knowledge about human capabilities, limitations, and behavior to the design of medical devices to achieve safe and effective use. Both approaches emphasize empirical evaluation with actual users performing realistic tasks under representative conditions.

The 2020 Amendment: Key Updates and Clarifications

In June 2020, Amendment 1 to IEC 62366-1:2015 was published, addressing 22 identified issues without fundamentally changing the usability engineering process. The amendment, now incorporated as IEC 62366-1:2015+AMD1:2020, includes several important updates:

Updated Reference to ISO 14971:2019: The amendment updates the normative reference to ISO 14971:2019 (the latest edition of the medical device risk management standard), ensuring better integration between usability engineering and risk assessment practices. This recognizes the inseparable relationship between usability engineering and risk management.

Enhanced Critical Task Definition: The amendment introduces the term "critical task" as a task in a hazard-related use scenario where a use error can lead to significant harm. While the concept existed previously, the explicit definition and guidance provide clearer criteria for identifying which tasks require the most rigorous evaluation.

Improved Summative Evaluation Requirements: The amendment requires manufacturers to explicitly state how summative evaluation participants are representative of intended user profiles and describe how the test environment and conditions of use adequately represent the intended use environment. This strengthens the validity of summative evaluation results by ensuring appropriate generalizability.

Training as Risk Control Measure: Training has been formally introduced as a third-priority risk control measure alongside information for safety (such as warnings and instructions). While training is recognized as less effective than design improvements or protective measures, it is acknowledged as a legitimate control for residual risks that cannot be adequately mitigated through other means.

Enhanced Documentation of Use Errors: The amendment requires that observed use errors be included in the user interface specification, not just considered for requirements. This ensures that knowledge gained during formative evaluations directly influences interface design.

Updates to Summative Evaluation for User Interface of Unknown Provenance (UOUP): The amendment references sections 5.1-5.9 while the 2015 edition referenced 5.1-5.8. Section 5.9 addresses summative evaluation, meaning manufacturers incorporating user interfaces of unknown provenance must now perform or justify the lack of summative evaluation for those interfaces.

These changes reflect lessons learned from industry implementation and regulatory reviews, providing clearer guidance and strengthening the rigor of usability engineering processes.

The Usability Engineering Process

IEC 62366-1 establishes a structured usability engineering process integrated throughout medical device development. The process consists of several interconnected activities:

Preparation of Use Specification: The process begins with documenting the intended use of the device, including the intended medical indication, patient population, body parts involved, user profile (characteristics of intended users including medical training, experience with similar devices, physical capabilities, cognitive abilities, and sensory capabilities), use environment (characteristics of the locations where the device will be used including lighting, noise, space constraints, time pressure, and distractions), and operational principle. The use specification establishes the context for all subsequent usability engineering activities and provides the foundation for determining whether the device can be used safely by the intended users in the intended environment.

Identification of User Interface Characteristics and Known Problems: Manufacturers must identify characteristics of the user interface that could contribute to use errors and known problems with similar devices or previous versions. This includes reviewing incident databases (such as FDA MAUDE database, EU Eudamed, manufacturer complaint files), published literature, post-market surveillance data, and competitive device analysis. Understanding failure modes and problems with similar devices prevents repetition of known design mistakes and informs hazard analysis.

Identification of Hazard-Related Use Scenarios: Manufacturers systematically identify use scenarios that could result in hazards or harm. A use scenario describes a task or series of tasks performed by a user to achieve a specific goal. Hazard-related use scenarios are those where use errors could lead to hazardous situations. This identification is conducted in close coordination with risk management activities per ISO 14971, ensuring comprehensive coverage of all foreseeable use-related risks. Hazard-related use scenarios consider both normal use (correct operation of the device) and use errors (actions or omissions by users that differ from what the manufacturer expects and that could lead to harm).

Selection of Hazard-Related Use Scenarios for Summative Evaluation: From the complete set of hazard-related use scenarios, manufacturers select those that will undergo summative evaluation (formal validation testing). This selection is risk-based: scenarios where use errors could lead to serious harm or death receive priority. Scenarios where design measures, protective measures, or information for safety have been implemented as risk controls must be validated. Manufacturers document the rationale for scenarios not selected for summative evaluation, typically because severity of potential harm is low, the probability of use error is negligible, or adequate risk control has been achieved through other means.

Establishment of User Interface Requirements: Based on hazard-related use scenarios and risk analysis, manufacturers establish specific requirements for the user interface design. Requirements address layout, labeling, controls, displays, feedback, warnings, instructions, and other interface elements. Requirements must be verifiable (testable), linked to specific hazard-related use scenarios, and traceable through design, implementation, and verification activities. Requirements capture both what the interface must do (functional requirements) and characteristics it must have (non-functional requirements such as visibility, readability, and understandability).

User Interface Design and Implementation: Manufacturers design and implement the user interface to meet established requirements. Design activities employ user-centered design principles including consistency, simplicity, affordance (design that suggests its use), feedback, error prevention, and error recovery. The standard encourages iterative design with frequent evaluation, allowing designers to identify and correct issues early when changes are less costly. Design decisions should be informed by human factors principles, ergonomics standards, style guides, and knowledge of user capabilities and limitations.

Formative Evaluation: Throughout design and development, manufacturers conduct formative evaluations to identify use errors, difficulties, close calls, design weaknesses, and areas for improvement. Formative evaluations are exploratory and diagnostic, helping designers understand how users interact with the device and what problems occur. Methods include cognitive walkthroughs (expert review simulating user tasks), heuristic evaluation (expert review against usability principles), think-aloud protocols (users verbalize thoughts while performing tasks), observation of users performing tasks, interviews, questionnaires, and simulated use testing. Formative evaluation participants should be representative of intended users but sample sizes can be smaller than summative evaluation, typically 5-15 participants depending on user group diversity and task complexity. Results drive iterative design improvements.

Summative Evaluation: After design is complete and the device is essentially finalized, manufacturers conduct summative evaluation to validate that the user interface can be used safely. Summative evaluation is confirmatory rather than exploratory, providing objective evidence that users can perform critical tasks without unacceptable use errors. Summative evaluation must be conducted with intended users (not surrogate users or usability professionals), under realistic conditions representative of actual use environments, using production-equivalent devices, following realistic scenarios covering all hazard-related use scenarios selected for evaluation, and without training beyond what users will receive in actual practice (unless training is an approved risk control measure). Sample sizes must provide adequate statistical confidence; the standard does not prescribe specific sample sizes but references IEC 62366-2 (informative part) which provides sample size guidance. Typically 15-25 participants per distinct user group are tested. Observed use errors, difficulties, and close calls are documented and assessed to determine if additional risk controls are needed.

Usability Engineering File: Throughout the process, manufacturers maintain a Usability Engineering File documenting all usability engineering activities, analyses, evaluations, and results. The file provides objective evidence of compliance with IEC 62366-1 and supports regulatory submissions. Contents include the use specification, user interface analysis, hazard-related use scenario analysis, user interface specification, formative evaluation plans and results, summative evaluation plan and results, risk analysis related to user interface (which may be integrated with the overall risk management file per ISO 14971), and residual risk analysis.

Critical Tasks and Hazard-Related Use Scenarios

The concepts of critical tasks and hazard-related use scenarios are central to IEC 62366-1's risk-based approach. Not all tasks are equally important from a safety perspective. Resources should be concentrated on tasks where errors could cause significant harm.

A hazard-related use scenario is a use scenario that could lead to a hazardous situation or harm. These scenarios are identified through systematic analysis considering possible user errors (omission errors—failing to perform a required action; commission errors—performing an incorrect action; timing errors—performing an action too early, too late, or in the wrong sequence; quantitative errors—using incorrect values or amounts; and qualitative errors—selecting the wrong mode, function, or option) and their consequences. For each potential error, manufacturers assess whether it could result in harm (considering severity and probability).

A critical task (defined in the 2020 amendment) is a task in a hazard-related use scenario where a use error can lead to significant harm. "Significant harm" is not precisely defined by the standard but generally corresponds to serious injury, death, or major permanent impairment. Critical tasks receive the highest priority for design attention, risk controls, and evaluation. All critical tasks must be included in summative evaluation unless adequate risk controls have eliminated the possibility of significant harm from use errors.

The identification process begins broadly and narrows through risk assessment. Manufacturers identify all use scenarios (typically dozens or hundreds for complex devices), determine which are hazard-related based on potential harm from use errors, assess the severity of potential harm for each hazard-related use scenario, and identify critical tasks as the subset where use errors could cause significant harm. This risk-based stratification ensures that evaluation resources focus on the most critical safety issues.

Integration with ISO 14971 Risk Management

IEC 62366-1 and ISO 14971 (medical device risk management standard) are inseparable and must be implemented together. ISO 14971 establishes the overall risk management framework for medical devices, while IEC 62366-1 provides specific guidance for managing use-related risks. The relationship operates on several levels:

Hazard Identification: Use-related hazards identified during usability engineering (hazard-related use scenarios) feed into the overall hazard analysis per ISO 14971. Conversely, hazards identified during ISO 14971 risk analysis may reveal use-related hazards requiring usability engineering attention.

Risk Analysis: Both standards require analysis of severity and probability of harm. IEC 62366-1 focuses specifically on harms resulting from use errors, while ISO 14971 covers all sources of harm. Risk analysis results from both processes must be consistent and coordinated.

Risk Control: IEC 62366-1 emphasizes design-based risk controls (inherently safe design that prevents use errors) as most effective, followed by protective measures (features that detect and correct use errors), and finally information for safety (warnings, instructions, training). This hierarchy aligns with ISO 14971's risk control hierarchy. Risk control measures implemented through usability engineering are documented in both the Usability Engineering File and the Risk Management File.

Verification and Validation: Summative evaluation per IEC 62366-1 provides validation that use-related risk controls are effective. Results contribute to overall risk acceptability assessment per ISO 14971.

Post-Market Surveillance: Both standards require monitoring of devices in actual use to identify unanticipated hazards and use errors. Post-market data may trigger additional risk analysis, risk control measures, and usability engineering activities.

Many organizations integrate their Usability Engineering File into their Risk Management File, creating a unified document. This integration is explicitly permitted by both standards and can reduce duplication while ensuring coordination. However, separation is also acceptable, particularly for organizations where different groups manage risk management and usability engineering.

Formative vs. Summative Evaluation: Purpose and Methods

IEC 62366-1 distinguishes between formative evaluation (conducted during development to improve design) and summative evaluation (conducted after development to validate safety). Understanding the distinction is essential for effective usability engineering:

Formative Evaluation:

Purpose: Identify problems, discover unexpected use errors, understand user behavior, evaluate design alternatives, and drive iterative improvement.

Timing: Throughout development, from early concepts through final prototypes. Multiple formative evaluations are typical.

Participants: Representative of intended users but sample sizes can be smaller (often 5-15). Expert reviews may supplement user testing.

Methods: Flexible and exploratory. Think-aloud protocols, semi-structured tasks, probing questions, cognitive walkthroughs, heuristic evaluation, and rapid prototyping.

Environment: Can use laboratory settings or simplified scenarios. Realism is beneficial but not mandatory.

Device State: Can use prototypes, mockups, simulation, or work-in-progress versions.

Training: Can provide extensive training or coaching to explore specific interactions.

Success Criteria: Primarily qualitative—identification of issues and design insights rather than statistical validation.

Regulatory Significance: Demonstrates due diligence and design iteration but does not validate safety.

Summative Evaluation:

Purpose: Validate that the final design can be used safely by intended users.

Timing: After design is essentially complete, typically during design validation phase before commercial release.

Participants: Must be intended users (not surrogates). Sample sizes sufficient for statistical confidence (typically 15-25 per distinct user group).

Methods: Structured and standardized. Realistic scenarios, objective performance measurement, minimal intervention.

Environment: Representative of actual use environment including relevant contextual factors (lighting, noise, distractions, time pressure).

Device State: Production-equivalent device with final user interface, labeling, and instructions.

Training: Only training that users will receive in practice (unless training is a documented risk control). No coaching or hints during testing.

Success Criteria: Quantitative—absence of use errors that could cause unacceptable harm. Statistical analysis of results.

Regulatory Significance: Primary evidence supporting regulatory submissions and demonstrating device safety.

The distinction is critical: formative evaluation helps build a safe device; summative evaluation proves the device is safe. Regulators expect to see evidence of both. Extensive formative evaluation typically leads to better summative evaluation results by identifying and correcting issues before validation.

Summative Evaluation Design and Success Criteria

Designing valid summative evaluations requires careful attention to multiple factors:

Participant Selection: Participants must match the intended user profile across relevant dimensions including professional role, medical specialty, experience level, age range, physical capabilities, and cognitive capabilities. Recruitment should sample the full range of intended users, not just the most skilled or knowledgeable. Participants should not have had extensive prior exposure to the specific device (though experience with similar devices is expected). Screening questionnaires ensure participants meet eligibility criteria.

Sample Size Determination: While IEC 62366-1 does not mandate specific sample sizes, the standard requires sufficient participants to provide confidence in results. IEC 62366-2 (informative guidance document) provides statistical rationale: 15 participants provides approximately 95% confidence of observing at least one occurrence of a use error that occurs with 20% probability; 25 participants provides similar confidence for errors occurring with 10% probability. When multiple distinct user groups exist (e.g., physicians and nurses, or healthcare professionals and patients), each group requires its own sample. Regulatory authorities typically expect 15-25 participants per user group, though specific requirements vary.

Task Design: Tasks must represent hazard-related use scenarios realistically, including appropriate context, clinical scenarios, patient conditions, and time constraints. Tasks should be presented in clinically plausible sequences. Instructions should not cue participants to specific actions but rather describe the clinical objective (e.g., "administer 5 units of insulin" rather than "press the up arrow three times then press the checkmark button").

Use Environment Simulation: The test environment must represent actual use environments across relevant dimensions including physical layout and equipment, lighting and visual conditions, ambient noise and distractions, time pressure and workload, interruptions and multitasking, and availability of reference materials. High-fidelity simulation is not always necessary, but critical environmental factors must be represented.

Moderator Behavior: Test moderators must be carefully trained to observe and record behaviors without influencing participant actions. Moderators should not provide hints, coaching, or feedback during task performance. Interventions are only appropriate if patient safety would be compromised in the simulated scenario (e.g., administering a lethal medication dose to a simulated patient). All interventions must be documented as use errors.

Data Collection: Summative evaluations collect both objective performance data (successful task completion, use errors, close calls, time to complete tasks) and subjective data (participant ratings of difficulty, confidence, satisfaction, and perceptions). Video recording is strongly recommended to capture detailed behaviors for later analysis. Multiple independent observers improve reliability of use error detection.

Success Criteria: Success is defined as absence of use errors that could lead to unacceptable harm. Manufacturers define specific acceptance criteria for each critical task based on risk analysis. For tasks where use errors could cause death or serious injury, the typical criterion is zero observed use errors across all participants. For tasks where errors could cause moderate injury, limited rates of minor errors may be acceptable if additional risk controls are in place. Close calls (situations where users nearly made errors but caught themselves) require careful assessment—they indicate design weaknesses even if errors were ultimately avoided.

Analysis and Reporting: Results are analyzed to determine whether acceptance criteria are met. Use errors and difficulties are categorized and assessed for their potential harm. Statistical analyses may include confidence intervals for error rates. Failed acceptance criteria trigger additional risk analysis, potential design changes, and additional risk controls. Results are documented in the summative evaluation report, which becomes part of the Usability Engineering File and regulatory submissions.

Common Challenges and Practical Solutions

Organizations implementing IEC 62366-1 frequently encounter challenges:

Recruiting Representative Users: Finding and scheduling actual intended users (particularly physicians, nurses, or patients) for usability testing can be difficult. Solutions: Build relationships with clinical advisors, user groups, and academic medical centers; offer appropriate compensation for participation; conduct testing at convenient locations and times; use remote testing technologies where appropriate; and plan recruitment well in advance.

Defining "Significant Harm": Determining which harms are "significant" and thus require critical task classification is sometimes unclear. Solutions: Apply consistent criteria aligned with ISO 14971 severity classifications; focus on permanent impairment, serious injury requiring significant medical intervention, and death as clearly significant; engage clinical experts in severity assessment; and document rationale for severity decisions.

Determining Adequate Sample Size: Choosing appropriate sample sizes balances statistical rigor with practical constraints. Solutions: Use statistical guidance from IEC 62366-2; consider expected error rates and required confidence; recognize that higher-risk devices and tasks justify larger samples; and engage with regulators early regarding sample size expectations for specific device types and markets.

Creating Realistic Use Environments: Simulating complex clinical environments (emergency departments, operating rooms, patient homes) for usability testing is challenging. Solutions: Use in-situ simulation at actual clinical facilities when possible; focus on critical environmental factors rather than complete recreation; employ high-fidelity manikins and medical equipment for clinical scenarios; and validate environment representativeness with clinical experts.

Integrating with Agile Development: Traditional usability engineering assumes sequential development, but modern software follows agile/iterative approaches. Solutions: Incorporate formative evaluation in each development sprint; maintain living documentation of hazard-related use scenarios and requirements; conduct summative evaluation on feature sets or increments when they reach sufficient maturity; and recognize that some aspects (use specification, hazard analysis) benefit from upfront work even in agile contexts.

Managing Design Changes After Summative Evaluation: When design changes occur after successful summative evaluation, determining whether re-validation is needed is not always clear. Solutions: Establish change control procedures that assess usability impact of changes; classify changes as major (requiring new summative evaluation), minor (requiring limited validation or formative evaluation), or negligible (no additional evaluation); maintain traceability between changes and validated tasks; and document rationale for validation decisions.

Resource Constraints: Comprehensive usability engineering requires significant resources for personnel, facilities, equipment, participants, and documentation. Solutions: Scale effort to device risk (higher-risk devices justify greater investment); leverage existing infrastructure (quality systems, risk management processes); use cross-functional teams rather than dedicated usability specialists for lower-risk devices; and recognize that usability investment prevents costly recalls, complaints, and redesigns.

Relationship with Other Medical Device Standards

IEC 62366-1 operates within an ecosystem of medical device standards:

ISO 13485 (Medical Device Quality Management Systems): Organizations implement IEC 62366-1 within their ISO 13485 quality management system. Usability engineering processes become part of design and development procedures, with usability engineering deliverables managed under document and record control.

IEC 62304 (Medical Device Software Lifecycle Processes): For devices with software user interfaces, IEC 62366-1 and IEC 62304 must be coordinated. Software requirements include usability requirements, software testing includes usability testing, and software risk management integrates with use-related risk management.

IEC 60601-1 (Medical Electrical Equipment Safety): For electrical medical devices, IEC 60601-1 includes usability-related requirements addressing alarms, displays, controls, and labeling. Compliance with IEC 62366-1 supports many IEC 60601-1 requirements, though both standards must be applied.

ISO 15223-1 (Medical Device Symbols): Standardized symbols used in medical device user interfaces must conform to ISO 15223-1. Usability testing validates that users correctly interpret these symbols in context.

ISO 20282 (Ease of Operation of Everyday Products): For some medical devices (particularly patient-facing devices), additional usability standards may apply alongside IEC 62366-1.

Regulatory Perspectives and Requirements

Regulatory authorities worldwide require usability engineering evidence in device approvals:

United States FDA: The FDA requires human factors information in premarket submissions (510(k), PMA, De Novo) for most devices. The FDA's guidance documents "Applying Human Factors and Usability Engineering to Medical Devices" (2016) and "Human Factors Studies and Related Clinical Study Considerations in Combination Product Design and Development" (2016) provide detailed expectations aligned with IEC 62366-1. FDA reviewers assess whether appropriate user research was conducted, hazard-related use scenarios comprehensively identified, formative evaluation iteratively improved design, summative evaluation included representative users and environments with adequate sample sizes, and residual use-related risks are acceptable. Deficiencies in human factors engineering are a common source of FDA deficiency letters and approval delays.

European Union MDR/IVDR: The EU Medical Device Regulation (2017/745) and In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (2017/746) include specific usability requirements in Annex I (General Safety and Performance Requirements). Manufacturers must design and manufacture devices considering characteristics and technical knowledge, experience, education, and training of intended users, and the reasonably foreseeable misuse. Technical documentation must include information on the user interface design and usability evaluation. IEC 62366-1 conformance supports MDR/IVDR compliance, though Notified Body expectations vary.

Health Canada: Health Canada recognizes IEC 62366-1 as a relevant standard and expects usability evidence in medical device applications. Requirements align closely with FDA and ISO standards.

Other Regulatory Bodies: Regulatory authorities in Australia (TGA), Japan (PMDA), China (NMPA), and other markets increasingly emphasize usability engineering. Global harmonization around IEC 62366-1 simplifies multi-market submissions.

Future Directions

Usability engineering for medical devices continues to evolve. Future developments likely include enhanced guidance for artificial intelligence and machine learning interfaces where system behavior may be less predictable, expanded coverage of mobile medical applications and consumer health technology, refined approaches for pediatric devices and special populations, increased emphasis on cognitive load and information design in complex devices, integration with cybersecurity usability (ensuring security features are usable), and application to combination products and drug-device combinations. Additionally, as telemedicine and remote monitoring expand, usability engineering must address distributed care models where device users and healthcare providers are geographically separated. The fundamental principles of IEC 62366-1—understanding users, identifying hazards, iterative design, empirical evaluation—will remain relevant as technology and care delivery models evolve.

Purpose

To provide manufacturers with a systematic usability engineering process to identify, evaluate, and mitigate use-related risks in medical devices, ensuring that user interfaces are designed for safe use and that use errors do not lead to patient or user harm

Key Benefits

• Regulatory compliance for FDA, EU MDR, Health Canada, and global markets
• Systematic approach to identifying and mitigating use-related risks
• Prevention of use errors that could lead to patient harm or death
• Improved user interface design through iterative testing and evaluation
• Reduced risk of recalls due to usability issues
• Structured framework for human factors engineering
• Clear documentation requirements for regulatory submissions
• Integration with ISO 14971 risk management process
• Enhanced device effectiveness through better usability
• Competitive advantage through superior user experience
• Evidence-based design decisions through formative evaluations
• Objective safety evidence through summative evaluation

Key Requirements

• Usability engineering plan defining scope, methods, and resources
• Identification of use scenarios and user profiles
• Identification of hazard-related use scenarios and critical tasks
• User interface specification addressing use-related risks
• Formative evaluations during development to identify use errors and design weaknesses
• Iterative design improvements based on formative evaluation results
• Summative evaluation with intended users under realistic conditions
• Testing of all critical tasks or subset based on harm severity
• Documentation of use-related risk analysis per ISO 14971
• Usability Engineering File containing all process documentation
• User interface evaluation plan documenting formative and summative evaluations
• Objective evidence that user interface can be used safely
• Training materials and user documentation evaluation
• Post-market surveillance of use-related issues

Who Needs This Standard?

Medical device manufacturers, user experience designers, human factors engineers, regulatory affairs professionals, quality assurance teams, and product development teams creating any medical device with a user interface, including software interfaces, physical controls, displays, or instructions for use.

Related Standards