Evaluation of the Effects of Radio-Frequency Identification Technology on Patient Tracking in Hospitals: A Systematic Review

Ebrahimzadeh, Fahimeh; Nabovati, Ehsan; Hasibian, Mohammad Reza; Eslami, Saeid

doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000446

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Distributing RTLS tags and enforcing their use in the community would be much more challenging than doing so in a clinical setting. Previous RTLS studies have been mainly confined to a defined setting [ 11 , 13 , 25 , 26 ]. On the other hand, Bluetooth technology is low cost, available on personal digital devices, and interoperable among Bluetooth-enabled devices [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Digital Contact Tracing Tools for COVID-19 Response in Singapore: Cross-Sectional Study

Huang¹,

Guo²,

Lee³

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Effective contact tracing is labor intensive and time sensitive during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also essential in the absence of effective treatment and vaccines. Singapore launched the first Bluetooth-based contact tracing app—TraceTogether—in March 2020 to augment Singapore’s contact tracing capabilities. Objective This study aims to compare the performance of the contact tracing app—TraceTogether—with that of a wearable tag-based real-time locating system (RTLS) and to validate them against the electronic medical records at the National Centre for Infectious Diseases (NCID), the national referral center for COVID-19 screening. Methods All patients and physicians in the NCID screening center were issued RTLS tags (CADI Scientific) for contact tracing. In total, 18 physicians were deployed to the NCID screening center from May 10 to May 20, 2020. The physicians activated the TraceTogether app (version 1.6; GovTech) on their smartphones during shifts and urged their patients to use the app. We compared patient contacts identified by TraceTogether and those identified by RTLS tags within the NCID vicinity during physicians’ 10-day posting. We also validated both digital contact tracing tools by verifying the physician-patient contacts with the electronic medical records of 156 patients who attended the NCID screening center over a 24-hour time frame within the study period. Results RTLS tags had a high sensitivity of 95.3% for detecting patient contacts identified either by the system or TraceTogether while TraceTogether had an overall sensitivity of 6.5% and performed significantly better on Android phones than iPhones (Android: 9.7%, iPhone: 2.7%; P<.001). When validated against the electronic medical records, RTLS tags had a sensitivity of 96.9% and specificity of 83.1%, while TraceTogether only detected 2 patient contacts with physicians who did not attend to them. Conclusions TraceTogether had a much lower sensitivity than RTLS tags for identifying patient contacts in a clinical setting. Although the tag-based RTLS performed well for contact tracing in a clinical setting, its implementation in the community would be more challenging than TraceTogether. Given the uncertainty of the adoption and capabilities of contact tracing apps, policy makers should be cautioned against overreliance on such apps for contact tracing. Nonetheless, leveraging technology to augment conventional manual contact tracing is a necessary move for returning some normalcy to life during the long haul of the COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Digital Contact Tracing Tools for COVID-19 Response in Singapore: Cross-Sectional Study

Huang¹,

Guo²,

Lee³

et al. 2020

JMIR Mhealth Uhealth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Technological advances such as real-time locating systems (RTLSs) have shown promise in overcoming the barriers to conventional contact tracing methods [13,14]. In recent years, health care institutions have been increasingly exploring the use of RTLSs to establish contacts within health care premises [12,13,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of a Real-Time Locating System for Contact Tracing of Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic at an Infectious Disease Center in Singapore: Validation Study

Ho¹,

Zhang²,

Huang³

et al. 2020

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In early 2020, coronavirus disease (COVID-19) emerged and spread by community and nosocomial transmission. Effective contact tracing of potentially exposed health care workers is crucial for the prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks in the health care setting. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contact tracing during the COVID-19 pandemic through the real-time locating system (RTLS) and review of the electronic medical record (EMR) at the designated hospital for COVID-19 response in Singapore. Methods Over a 2-day study period, all admitted patients with COVID-19, their ward locations, and the health care workers rostered to each ward were identified to determine the total number of potential contacts between patients with COVID-19 and health care workers. The numbers of staff-patient contacts determined by EMR reviews, RTLS-based contact tracing, and a combination of both methods were evaluated. The use of EMR-based and RTLS-based contact tracing methods was further validated by comparing their sensitivity and specificity against self-reported staff-patient contacts by health care workers. Results Of 796 potential staff-patient contacts (between 17 patients and 162 staff members), 104 (13.1%) were identified by both the RTLS and EMR, 54 (6.8%) by the RTLS alone, and 99 (12.4%) by the EMR alone; 539 (67.7%) were not identified through either method. Compared to self-reported contacts, EMR reviews had a sensitivity of 47.2% and a specificity of 77.9%, while the RTLS had a sensitivity of 72.2% and a specificity of 87.7%. The highest sensitivity was obtained by including all contacts identified by either the RTLS or the EMR (sensitivity 77.8%, specificity 73.4%). Conclusions RTLS-based contact tracing showed higher sensitivity and specificity than EMR review. Integration of both methods provided the best performance for rapid contact tracing, although technical adjustments to the RTLS and increasing user compliance with wearing of RTLS tags remain necessary.

show abstract

“…An RTLS is an indoor positioning application that can locate a person or object tagged with radiofrequency identification (RFID) in real-time. 2 Some of its capabilities include tracking hospital assets, 3–5 monitoring patient safety for falls prevention, 6 , 7 monitoring hand hygiene compliance for infection prevention and control, 8 , 9 and contact tracing during an outbreak. 10 Studies on staff-worn RFID tags have shown promises in the accuracy and efficiency of RTLS technology for contact tracing compared with conventional methods.…”

Section: Background and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Psychosocial determinants of healthcare personnel’s willingness to carry real-time locating system tags during daily inpatient care in hospital managing COVID-19 patients: insights from a mixed-methods analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Real-time locating systems (RTLS) enable contact tracing and hand hygiene reminders, to improve hospital safety. Successful implementation requires healthcare personnel (HCP) to carry RTLS tags continuously. We assessed for determinants of HCP’s willingness to use RTLS tags during routine inpatient care, and evaluated concerns using mixed-methods analysis. Materials and Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study in the 330-bed purpose-built National Centre for Infectious Diseases in Singapore, from January 15 through February 4, 2020. The anonymous survey comprised 24 questions based on constructs from behavioral models and an open-ended question. Principal component analysis was performed to derive the latent factor structure applied in the multivariable logistic regression analysis. Concerns were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Of 260 HCP (nurses [40.8%], ancillary and administrative staff [23.1%], allied health professionals [18.5%], and physicians [17.7%]), 75% were willing to use the RTLS tag. After adjusting for age, gender, healthcare professional group, and duration of practice, the acceptance of the use of the RTLS tag (adjusted OR 11.28 [95% CI 4.39–29.00], P < .001) was highly associated with the willingness to use the RTLS tag. HCP who perceived the tag to be easy to use (adjusted OR 2.80 [95% CI 1.37–5.72], P = .005), were also more willing to use the tag. HCP were willing to carry the RTLS tag for the purpose of contact tracing despite privacy concerns. Conclusion More communications on the intentions and data protection standards of the RTLS, and accessory enhancements for HCP’s convenient and sustained use of the RTLS tag are crucial, to optimize RTLS’s usefulness during the COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Effects of Radio-Frequency Identification Technology on Patient Tracking in Hospitals: A Systematic Review

Cited by 15 publications

References 25 publications

Performance of Digital Contact Tracing Tools for COVID-19 Response in Singapore: Cross-Sectional Study

Performance of Digital Contact Tracing Tools for COVID-19 Response in Singapore: Cross-Sectional Study

Use of a Real-Time Locating System for Contact Tracing of Health Care Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic at an Infectious Disease Center in Singapore: Validation Study

Psychosocial determinants of healthcare personnel’s willingness to carry real-time locating system tags during daily inpatient care in hospital managing COVID-19 patients: insights from a mixed-methods analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About