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.

Barriers to physical distancing among healthcare workers on an academic hospital unit during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Physical distancing among healthcare workers (HCWs) is an essential strategy in preventing HCW-to-HCWs transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). OBJECTIVE: To understand barriers to physical distancing among HCWs on an inpatient unit and identify strategies for improvement. DESIGN: Qualitative study including observations and semistructured interviews conducted over 3 months. SETTING: A non-COVID-19 adult general medical unit in an academic tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: HCWs based on the unit. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study in which we (1) observed HCW activities and proximity to each other on the unit during weekday shifts July-October 2020 and (2) conducted semi-structured interviews of HCWs to understand their experiences with and perspectives of physical distancing in the hospital. Qualitative data were coded based on a human-factors engineering model. RESULTS: We completed 25 hours of observations and 20 HCW interviews. High-risk interactions often occurred during handoffs of care at shift changes and patient rounds, when HCWs gathered regularly in close proximity for at least 15 minutes. Identified barriers included spacing and availability of computers, the need to communicate confidential patient information, and the desire to maintain relationships at work. CONCLUSIONS: Physical distancing can be improved in hospitals by restructuring computer workstations, work rooms, and break rooms; applying visible cognitive aids; adapting shift times; and supporting rounds and meetings with virtual conferencing. Additional strategies to promote staff adherence to physical distancing include rewarding positive behaviors, having peer leaders model physical distancing, and encouraging additional safe avenues for social connection at a safe distance.