Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23990915›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Measuring social contacts in the emergency department.

Douglas W Lowery-North, Vicki Stover Hertzberg, Lisa Elon, George Cotsonis, Sarah A Hilton, Christopher F Vaughns, Eric Hill, Alok Shrestha, Alexandria Jo, Nathan Adams

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Risk of Cross Infection in the Emergency Department: A Simulation Study.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2018
    Article
  13. Behaviors, movements, and transmission of droplet-mediated respiratory diseases during transcontinental airline flights.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Douglas W Lowery-NorthDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Vicki Stover Hertzberg
Lisa Elon
George Cotsonis
Sarah A Hilton
Christopher F Vaughns
Eric Hill
Alok Shrestha
Alexandria Jo
Nathan Adams

Funding

NIAID NIH HHS HHSN266200700006CPHS HHS 266200700006C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfectious individuals in an emergency department (ED) bring substantial risks of cross infection. Data about the complex social and spatial structure of interpersonal contacts in the ED will aid construction of biologically plausible transmission risk models that can guide cross infection control. METHODS AND

findingsWe sought to determine the number and duration of contacts among patients and staff in a large, busy ED. This prospective study was conducted between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2010. Two 12-hour shifts per week were randomly selected for study. The study was conducted in the ED of an urban hospital. There were 81 shifts in the planned random sample of 104 (78%) with usable contact data, during which there were 9183 patient encounters. Of these, 6062 (66%) were approached to participate, of which 4732 (78%) agreed. Over the course of the year, 88 staff members participated (84%). A radiofrequency identification (RFID) system was installed and the ED divided into 89 distinct zones structured so copresence of two individuals in any zone implied a very high probability of contact <1 meter apart in space. During study observation periods, patients and staff were given RFID tags to wear. Contact events were recorded. These were further broken down with respect to the nature of the contacts, i.e., patient with patient, patient with staff, and staff with staff. 293,171 contact events were recorded, with a median of 22 contact events and 9 contacts with distinct individuals per participant per shift. Staff-staff interactions were more numerous and longer than patient-patient or patient-staff interactions.

conclusionsWe used RFID to quantify contacts between patients and staff in a busy ED. These results are useful for studies of the spread of infections. By understanding contact patterns most important in potential transmission, more effective prevention strategies may be implemented.

Indexed as

Contact TracingInterpersonal RelationsAdultCommunicable DiseasesCross InfectionEmergency Service, HospitalFacility Design and ConstructionFemaleHospitals, UrbanHumansInfection ControlMaleMedical Staff, HospitalMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadio Frequency Identification Device

Identifiers

PMID23990915
PMCPMC3749132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.