The case for wearable proximity devices to inform physical distancing among healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the importance of physical distancing in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission, this practice is challenging in healthcare. We piloted use of wearable proximity beacons among healthcare workers (HCWs) in an inpatient unit to highlight considerations for future use of trackable technologies in healthcare settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a feasibility pilot study in a non-COVID adult medical unit from September 28 to October 28, 2020. HCWs wore wearable proximity beacons, and interactions defined as <6 feet for ≥5 s were recorded. Validation was performed using direct observations. RESULTS: A total of 6172 close proximity interactions were recorded, and with the removal of 2033 false-positive interactions, 4139 remained. The highest proportion of interactions occurred between 7:00 Am-9:00 Am. Direct observations of HCWs substantiated these findings. DISCUSSION: This pilot study showed that wearable beacons can be used to monitor and quantify HCW interactions in inpatient settings. CONCLUSION: Technology can be used to track HCW physical distancing.

Improving physical distancing among healthcare workers in a pediatric intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) not adhering to physical distancing recommendations is a risk factor for acquisition of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The study objective was to assess the impact of interventions to improve HCW physical distancing on actual distance between HCWs in a real-life setting. METHODS: HCWs voluntarily wore proximity beacons to measure the number and intensity of physical distancing interactions between each other in a pediatric intensive care unit. We compared interactions before and after implementing a bundle of interventions including changes to the layout of workstations, cognitive aids, and individual feedback from wearable proximity beacons. RESULTS: Overall, we recorded 10,788 interactions within 6 feet (∼2 m) and lasting >5 seconds. The number of HCWs wearing beacons fluctuated daily and increased over the study period. On average, 13 beacons were worn daily (32% of possible staff; range, 2-32 per day). We recorded 3,218 interactions before the interventions and 7,570 interactions after the interventions began. Using regression analysis accounting for the maximum number of potential interactions if all staff had worn beacons on a given day, there was a 1% decline in the number of interactions per possible interactions in the postintervention period (incident rate ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.00; P = .02) with fewer interactions occurring at nursing stations, in workrooms and during morning rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Using quantitative data from wearable proximity beacons, we found an overall small decline in interactions within 6 feet between HCWs in a busy intensive care unit after a multifaceted bundle of interventions was implemented to improve physical distancing.