Table 2.
Health care staff additionally identified as potentially exposed by real-time location system
| Role | Case No. | Total, n | Total additional staff identified, % | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |||
| Physician | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4.4 | |||||||
| Nurse | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 16 | 35.6 | ||
| Pharmacist | 1 | 1 | 2.2 | ||||||||
| Respiratory care | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6.7 | ||||||
| Care team assistant | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 9 | 20.0 | ||||
| Registration | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 13.3 | ||||
| Phlebotomist | 2 | 2 | 4.4 | ||||||||
| Child life specialist | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 13.3 | ||||
| Total | 6 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 11 | 7 | 45 | 100 |
NOTE. Case numbers 7, 8, and 9 had the longest length of stay (4:48, 4:47, and 4:90 min, respectively) and also had the largest number of additionally identified staff by RTLS (7, 11, and 7, respectively) (Table 2). Length of stay had significant positive correlation with the total unique contacts (ρ = 0.78; P = .01). When further examined by identification method, length of stay had significant positive correlation with the total contact number identified by RTLS (ρ = 0.79; P = .01) but length of stay was not significantly correlated with the total contact number identified by EMR review (ρ = 0.43; P = .25).