Observational studyThe American journal of emergency medicine2021
Keep your distance! Measuring staff physical distancing during the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic using a real-time locating system.
Observational study in The American journal of emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionStaff-to-staff transmission of SARS-CoV-2 poses a significant risk to the Emergency Department (ED) workforce. We measured close (<6 ft), prolonged (>10 min) staff interactions in a busy pediatric Emergency Department in common work areas over time as the pandemic unfolded, measuring the effectiveness of interventions meant to discourage such close contact.
methodsWe used a Real-Time Locating System to measure staff groupings in crowded common work areas lasting ten or more minutes. We compared the number of these interactions pre-pandemic with those occurring early and then later in the pandemic, as distancing interventions were suggested and then formalized. Nearly all healthcare workers in the ED were included, and the duration of interactions over time were evaluated as well. RESULTS AND
conclusionsThis study included a total of 12,386 pairs of staff-to-staff encounters over three time periods including just prior to the pandemic, early in the pandemic response, and later in the steady-state pandemic response. Pairs of staff averaged 0.89 high-risk interactions hourly prior to the pandemic, and this continued early in the pandemic with informal recommendations (0.80 high-risk pairs hourly). High-risk staff encounters fell significantly to 0.47 interactions per hour in the steady-state pandemic with formal distancing guidelines in place and decreased patient and staffing volumes. The duration of these encounters remained stable, near 16 min. Close contact between healthcare staff workers did significantly decrease with formal distancing guidelines, though some high-risk interactions remained, warranting additive protective measures such as universal masking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.