Medical device design agency
Medical device UX design and usability engineering to IEC 62366-1
Fessburn is a product studio in Warsaw and Poznań. We design and test the software on medical devices and in clinical workflows, and we plan the IEC 62366-1 usability engineering file from the first workshop.
We've done this work for Bayer, Philips, QIAGEN, and ORtelligence. The usability evidence from the QIAGEN project went into a regulatory submission that passed.
- Standard
- IEC 62366-1 and FDA HF guidance
- Usability Review
- From €12,000 · 4 weeks
- Triage call
- €1,500 · 2 hours
- Clients
- Bayer, Philips, QIAGEN
Why the usability engineering file causes problems late in a project
A lot of teams write the usability engineering file once the design is already finished. That's when the gaps show up: critical tasks that were never tested, and hazard-related use scenarios that don't match the risk analysis.
We plan the file alongside the design instead. This way, the evidence is already there when a notified body or the FDA asks for it.
When you add a new parameter or an AI feature to a device that's already validated, you add new failure modes, even if most of the workflow stays the same. We separate the new tasks from the ones that were already validated, so the testing focuses on the new risk.
Medical device projects we've worked on
Medical devices
Philips patient monitor
Philips needed a new parameter on its bedside monitors. We turned the requirements into 14+ use scenarios, five safety decisions, and uFMEA inputs. More than 200 possible use errors went into the uFMEA review, and about 20 participants took part in the formal usability study.
Read the Philips case
Diagnostics
QIAGEN QIAsymphony
We led risk-based UX and usability engineering for sample preparation and assay setup, and delivered five evidence outputs, a formative study plan, and a summative-readiness checklist. The evidence went into a regulatory submission that passed.
Read the QIAGEN case
Critical care
Bayer ICU Angel
We designed the clinician and investigator views for an ARDS risk-monitoring platform and ran moderated prototype testing across the whole workflow. Clinicians went from about 30 seconds to less than 5 seconds to spot a critical change, and the platform went into a pilot.
Read the Bayer case
Operating room
ORtelligence
We designed the mobile scanning flows surgical teams use to account for every instrument, including the confirmation and recovery states. Preparation became 75% faster, and overall operation time dropped by 40%.
Read the ORtelligence case
How the Usability Review works
If you're about to submit and you're not sure your usability engineering file is complete, we read it clause by clause against IEC 62366-1 and the FDA's human factors guidance. It takes 4 weeks and starts from €12,000.
- Week 1We read your usability engineering file, your risk analysis, and your IFU, and agree on the questions you need answered.
- Week 2We map the file clause by clause against IEC 62366-1 and the FDA human factors guidance.
- Week 3We review your critical tasks, your hazard-related use scenarios, and the IFU.
- Week 4You get the gap matrix, the ranked fix list, and a recorded walkthrough of what we found.
The review doesn't include writing your file, running formative or summative studies, or regulatory sign-off. Design and conformity decisions stay with the manufacturer.
If you'd like to start smaller, you can book a €1,500 two-hour triage first. It's credited against the full review if you book that within 14 days.
Which regulatory dates are medical device teams working toward?
| Rule | Date | What it covers |
|---|
| IEC 62366-1 and FDA human factors guidance | Applies now | The usability engineering standard notified bodies and the FDA expect for medical device software. |
|---|
| MDR transition for higher-risk devices | 31 Dec 2027 | Devices certified under the old directives have to move to MDR certificates. |
|---|
| MDR transition for lower-risk devices | 31 Dec 2028 | The later deadline for the remaining device classes. |
|---|
| AI Act rules for AI in medical devices | 2 Aug 2028 | AI built into medical devices takes on the AI Act's high-risk obligations. |
|---|
These dates are from our October 2026 research. Check them with your regulatory team, because this isn't regulatory advice.
What should you ask a medical device design agency?
- Ask which devices they've worked on and what happened to the usability evidence, for example if it went into a submission.
- Ask when they start the usability engineering file. If the answer is after the design is done, expect gaps in the critical tasks.
- Ask how they handle a change to a validated device, and how they keep the new tasks apart from the ones already validated.
- Ask who does the design and who does the usability work. With us, it's the same team.
Questions people ask us
Do you run summative usability studies?
The Usability Review doesn't include running studies or recruiting participants. On the QIAGEN project, we wrote the formative study plan and a summative-readiness checklist. If you need study work, we scope and price it separately.
We don't have a usability engineering file yet. Can you help?
Yes. Building the process and the file is a larger piece of work than the review, so we scope and price it separately.
Do you work on software as a medical device (SaMD)?
Yes. The Usability Review is for medical device and diagnostics teams preparing a submission, and for SaMD teams with a usability file in progress.
Can we sign an NDA first?
Yes. If you need one before sharing files, send it with your first email to hello@fessburn.com.
Tell us about the device and your submission date
Send us a short description of the device and where your usability engineering file is at. We'll reply with what we'd recommend, starting with the two-hour triage if that fits.