Home / Clinical Services / Human Factors and Usability
IEC 62366-1 · EU MDR & IVDR Annex I · FDA HF guidance

Human Factors and Usability Studies for Medical Devices

REGHELPS plans and runs usability engineering for medical devices and IVDs: use specification, use-related risk analysis, formative evaluations and summative human factors validation studies with representative users, documented in a usability engineering file ready for EU MDR, IVDR and FDA review.

9steps in the IEC 62366-1 process
2evaluation types: formative and summative
15+participants per distinct user group
ISO 14971use-related risks feed the risk file
The basics

What is human factors and usability engineering?

Human factors and usability engineering is the discipline of designing a device so that its intended users can use it safely and effectively, in its real use environment, without errors that could cause harm. Regulators treat it as part of risk management, not as a matter of user comfort.

The process is set out in IEC 62366-1. It starts by defining who uses the device, where and for what, identifies tasks where a use error could cause harm, improves the design through formative evaluations, and ends with a summative evaluation that proves the final user interface is safe.

The user interface is everything the user touches, sees or hears: controls, displays, alarms, labels, instructions for use, packaging and training.
!
Use errors cause real harmMany device recalls and adverse events trace back to use-related problems.
✓
Required in the EU and USAEU MDR, IVDR and FDA all expect documented usability engineering.
↻
Linked to risk managementUse-related risks flow into your ISO 14971 risk file.
◎
Better productsDevices that are easier to use are safer and sell better.
Regulatory requirements

What EU MDR, IVDR and FDA require

The three frameworks align closely. One well-run usability programme can support all of them.

TopicEU MDR and IVDRUS FDA
Legal basisAnnex I GSPR 5, plus GSPR on lay users, information supplied and self-testingDesign controls in 21 CFR 820 QMSR and human factors guidance
StandardEN 62366-1 (harmonised)IEC 62366-1 recognised; FDA guidance applies
Key deliverableUsability engineering file in the technical documentationHuman factors / usability engineering report in the submission
Summative evidenceSummative evaluation of selected hazard-related use scenariosHuman factors validation testing of critical tasks
Special focusLay users and self-testing devicesCritical tasks, new user interfaces and home use
Process flow

The IEC 62366-1 usability engineering process

Nine linked steps, from understanding your users to proving the final design is safe.

Use specificationIntended users, use environments, medical indication and operating principle.
UI characteristics and use errorsFeatures of the user interface linked to safety and possible use errors.
Hazards and use scenariosKnown and foreseeable hazards and the scenarios that lead to them.
Select scenariosChoose hazard-related use scenarios for summative evaluation.
UI specificationRequirements for the user interface, including labels and IFU.
Evaluation planFormative and summative methods, participants and acceptance criteria.
Design and formative evaluationIterate the design and test it with users and experts.
Summative evaluationValidate the final user interface with representative users.
Usability engineering fileAll records, ready for your Notified Body or FDA.
↻Use-related risks found at any step are added to the ISO 14971 risk management file and checked again after design changes.
Evaluation types

Formative vs summative usability evaluation

Formative work finds problems early, when they are cheap to fix. Summative work proves the final design is safe.

Formative evaluationSummative evaluation (HF validation)
PurposeFind and fix use problems during designProve the final user interface is safe and effective
WhenThroughout design and developmentOn the final, production-equivalent design
MethodsExpert reviews, cognitive walkthroughs, prototype tests, contextual inquirySimulated-use testing, or actual use where needed
ParticipantsSmall groups, often 5–8 per roundAt least 15 per distinct user group (FDA)
OutputDesign recommendationsPass or fail against acceptance criteria, with root cause analysis of use errors
Decision flow

How large does your usability study need to be?

Every device needs usability engineering. This flow helps decide how much summative testing to plan.

Question 1Could a use error on any task cause serious harm or compromise care?
NoA focused summative evaluation of selected scenarios is usually enough.
YesThese are critical tasks. Go to question 2.
Question 2Is the user interface new or changed compared with a legacy or predicate device?
NoA UOUP or comparative evaluation may support the file. Go to question 3.
YesPlan a full summative (HF validation) study covering all critical tasks.
Question 3Will lay users or patients use the device at home?
YesInclude lay user groups and home-like environments in the summative study.
NoTest with professional user groups in a simulated clinical setting.
Summative study

How a summative usability study runs

A typical human factors validation study, from protocol to final report.

ProtocolCritical tasks, scenarios, user groups, acceptance criteria and data collection.
RecruitmentRepresentative participants for each distinct user group.
Test sessionsSimulated-use sessions with realistic environment, training and IFU.
AnalysisObserved use errors, close calls and difficulties, with root cause interviews.
ReportResidual risk conclusions for the usability engineering file or FDA submission.
How we work

Our human factors and usability process

REGHELPS runs usability engineering as a complete service, from first analysis to the summative study report.

  1. 1

    Gap assessment

    Start

    We review your existing usability records, risk file and user interface against IEC 62366-1 and FDA expectations.

  2. 2

    Use specification and user research

    Users

    We define user groups and use environments through interviews and contextual inquiry.

  3. 3

    Task analysis and URRA

    Risk

    We map every task and build the use-related risk analysis that identifies critical tasks.

  4. 4

    Known use problems

    Data

    We review complaints, adverse event databases and literature for similar devices.

  5. 5

    Formative evaluations

    Design

    We run expert reviews and prototype tests and give clear design recommendations.

  6. 6

    Summative study

    Validation

    We write the protocol, recruit participants, run sessions and analyse results.

  7. 7

    Usability engineering file

    Documentation

    We compile the file and write the HF/UE report for EU and FDA submissions.

  8. 8

    Reviewer questions

    Support

    We answer Notified Body and FDA questions on usability.

Avoid findings

Common usability engineering findings

01
No use-related risk analysisCritical tasks never identified or linked to the risk file.
02
Wrong participantsEngineers or sales staff instead of representative users.
03
Too few participantsFewer than 15 per distinct user group without justification.
04
IFU and labels not testedInstructions left out of the user interface evaluation.
05
Use errors not analysedErrors recorded but no root cause or residual risk conclusion.
06
Testing on a prototypeSummative study run on a design that later changed.
Our services

Our human factors and usability services

Use specification and user researchUser groups, environments and task analysis.
Use-related risk analysis (URRA)Critical tasks linked to ISO 14971.
Formative evaluationsExpert reviews and prototype testing.
Summative HF validation studiesProtocol, recruitment, sessions and report.
Usability engineering fileComplete IEC 62366-1 documentation.
IVD and self-test usabilityLay-user studies for IVDs and home-use devices.
FAQ

Human factors and usability FAQs

Which standards apply to human factors and usability for medical devices?

The main standard is IEC 62366-1:2015 with Amendment 1:2020, harmonised in Europe as EN 62366-1. IEC/TR 62366-2 gives practical guidance. In the USA, FDA expects its human factors guidance to be followed, and in the EU, MDR and IVDR Annex I (GSPR 5) require use-related risks to be reduced as far as possible.

What is the difference between formative and summative usability evaluation?

Formative evaluations happen during design to find and fix use problems early, using methods such as expert reviews, cognitive walkthroughs and early prototype tests. The summative evaluation, called human factors validation testing by FDA, is done on the final design to show that critical tasks can be performed safely by representative users.

How many participants are needed for a summative usability test?

FDA guidance recommends at least 15 participants for each distinct user group, such as clinicians, nurses, patients or lay caregivers. EU Notified Bodies generally accept the same approach when it is justified in the usability engineering file.

Do all devices need a summative usability study?

IEC 62366-1 requires summative evaluation of the selected hazard-related use scenarios for every device. How large it must be depends on risk. FDA expects human factors validation data in submissions for devices with critical tasks, especially new user interfaces, home-use devices and devices used by lay people.

Can a usability study replace clinical evaluation?

No. A usability study shows that users can operate the device safely and effectively. Clinical evaluation shows that the device is safe and performs as intended in patients and delivers clinical benefit. Both are needed, and their findings should be consistent.

What is a use-related risk analysis (URRA)?

A URRA lists every user task, the potential use errors for each, the resulting harms and their severity. It identifies critical tasks and links usability engineering to the ISO 14971 risk management file. FDA increasingly expects a URRA in submissions.

What is a user interface of unknown provenance (UOUP)?

It is an existing user interface that was not developed under IEC 62366-1, often on legacy devices. Annex C of IEC 62366-1 describes a simplified process to evaluate it using post-market data and a focused risk assessment.

Can you run usability studies for IVDs and self-tests?

Yes. IVDs, especially self-tests and near-patient tests used by lay people, have specific usability requirements under IVDR Annex I. We design studies with representative lay users, including reading and interpreting results.

Need a usability study your regulator will accept?

Share your device, user groups and target markets using the form below and we'll propose a usability plan and budget.

Request a usability proposal

Get a free quote

Read our Privacy Policy.