The Potential Role of an Adjunctive Real-Time Locating System in Preventing Secondary Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a Hospital Environment: Retrospective Case-Control Study

Min Hyung Kim; Un Hyoung Ryu; Seok-Jae Heo; Yong Chan Kim; Yoon Soo Park

doi:10.2196/41395

YUHSpace

BROWSE

Cited 5 times in

The Potential Role of an Adjunctive Real-Time Locating System in Preventing Secondary Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in a Hospital Environment: Retrospective Case-Control Study

Authors: Min Hyung Kim ; Un Hyoung Ryu ; Seok-Jae Heo ; Yong Chan Kim ; Yoon Soo Park

Citation: JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, Vol.24(10) : e41395, 2022-10

Journal Title: JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH

ISSN: 1439-4456

Issue Date: 2022-10

MeSH: COVID-19* / epidemiology ; COVID-19* / prevention & control ; Case-Control Studies ; Contact Tracing / methods ; Hospitals ; Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; SARS-CoV-2*

Keywords: COVID-19 ; SARS-CoV-2 ; contact tracing ; real-time locating system ; secondary transmission

Abstract: Background: There has been an increasing demand for new technologies regarding infection control in hospital settings to reduce the burden of contact tracing.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the validity of a real-time locating system (RTLS) with that of the conventional contact tracing method for identifying high-risk contact cases associated with the secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Methods: A retrospective case-control study involving in-hospital contact cases of confirmed COVID-19 patients, who were diagnosed from January 23 to March 25, 2022, was conducted at a university hospital in South Korea. Contact cases were identified using either the conventional method or the RTLS. The primary endpoint of this study was secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among contact cases. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis comparing test positive and versus negative contact cases were performed.

Results: Overall, 509 and 653 cases were confirmed by the conventional method and the RTLS, respectively. Only 74 contact cases were identified by both methods, which could be attributed to the limitations of each method. Sensitivity was higher for the RTLS tracing method (653/1088, 60.0%) than the conventional tracing method (509/1088, 46.8%) considering all contact cases identified by both methods. The secondary transmission rate in the RTLS model was 8.1%, while that in the conventional model was 5.3%. The multivariable logistic regression model revealed that the RTLS was more capable of detecting secondary transmission than the conventional method (adjusted odds ratio 6.15, 95% CI 1.92-28.69; P=.007).

Conclusions: This study showed that the RTLS is beneficial when used as an adjunctive approach to the conventional method for contact tracing associated with secondary transmission. However, the RTLS cannot completely replace traditional contact tracing.