PloS one · 2012
Electronic sensors for assessing interactions between healthcare workers and patients under airborne precautions.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lucet Jean-Christophe, Laouenan Cédric, Chelius Guillaume, Veziris Nicolas, Lepelletier Didier, Friggeri Adrien, Abiteboul Dominique, Bouvet Elisabeth, Mentre France, Fleury Eric
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Direct observation has been widely used to assess interactions between healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients but is time-consuming and feasible only over short periods. We used a Radio Frequency Identification Device (RFID) system to automatically measure HCW-patient interactions.
METHODS: We equipped 50 patient rooms with fixed sensors and 111 HCW volunteers with mobile sensors in two clinical wards of two hospitals. For 3 months, we recorded all interactions between HCWs and 54 patients under airborne precautions for suspected (n = 40) or confirmed (n = 14) tuberculosis. Number and duration of HCW entries into patient rooms were collected daily. Concomitantly, we directly observed room entries and interviewed HCWs to evaluate their self-perception of the number and duration of contacts with tuberculosis patients.
RESULTS: After signal reconstruction, 5490 interactions were recorded between 82 HCWs and 54 tuberculosis patients during 404 days of airborne isolation. Median (interquartile range) interaction duration was 2.1 (0.8-4.4) min overall, 2.3 (0.8-5.0) in the mornings, 1.8 (0.8-3.7) in the afternoons, and 2.0 (0.7-4.3) at night (P<10(-4)). Number of interactions/day/HCW was 3.0 (1.0-6.0) and total daily duration was 7.6 (2.4-22.5) min. Durations estimated from 28 direct observations and 26 interviews were not significantly different from those recorded by the network.
CONCLUSIONS: The RFID was well accepted by HCWs. This original technique holds promise for accurately and continuously measuring interactions between HCWs and patients, as a less resource-consuming substitute for direct observation. The results could be used to model the transmission of significant pathogens. HCW perceptions of interactions with patients accurately reflected reality.
METHODS: We equipped 50 patient rooms with fixed sensors and 111 HCW volunteers with mobile sensors in two clinical wards of two hospitals. For 3 months, we recorded all interactions between HCWs and 54 patients under airborne precautions for suspected (n = 40) or confirmed (n = 14) tuberculosis. Number and duration of HCW entries into patient rooms were collected daily. Concomitantly, we directly observed room entries and interviewed HCWs to evaluate their self-perception of the number and duration of contacts with tuberculosis patients.
RESULTS: After signal reconstruction, 5490 interactions were recorded between 82 HCWs and 54 tuberculosis patients during 404 days of airborne isolation. Median (interquartile range) interaction duration was 2.1 (0.8-4.4) min overall, 2.3 (0.8-5.0) in the mornings, 1.8 (0.8-3.7) in the afternoons, and 2.0 (0.7-4.3) at night (P<10(-4)). Number of interactions/day/HCW was 3.0 (1.0-6.0) and total daily duration was 7.6 (2.4-22.5) min. Durations estimated from 28 direct observations and 26 interviews were not significantly different from those recorded by the network.
CONCLUSIONS: The RFID was well accepted by HCWs. This original technique holds promise for accurately and continuously measuring interactions between HCWs and patients, as a less resource-consuming substitute for direct observation. The results could be used to model the transmission of significant pathogens. HCW perceptions of interactions with patients accurately reflected reality.