Hand Hygiene

We set up this experiment according to the plan shown below. Someone wearing Pager 239 stood at all the places indicated by numbers 1-11. In the rigged trial, they stood in a manner that would collect the best data. In the natural trial, they moved around and tried to act natural. Lots of good data was collected. And here’s the report-

RESULTS:

Position 1: (~)

In both the rigged and natural experiments, this position gave the expected results. Both experiments showed HandCleaner 103 at very high RSSI values.

The natural experiment actually worked better because it showed that Pager 239 and Anchor 51 were closer together.  Anchor 48 also responded, but at a lower RSSI. There was some action between 239 and Anchor 49.

The rigged experiment gave more signals from Anchor 48 and 49 and less from Anchor 51, so the rigged trial actually did not give us the perfect results we expected.

Position 2: (+)

The rigged experiment worked pretty well in this case. It showed low and high RSSI values between 239 and Anchor 48, showing entrance into the room. Many high RSSI values are seen, suggesting that the difference between in the room and out of the room was detected. Anchor 53 also received some messages from 239, which was acceptable because 53 was in the adjacent room.

The natural experiment again showed strong correspondence between Anchor 48 and 239. However, there was a lot of correspondence from Anchors 49, 51, 53, and 54. This suggests that with a person moving around in the room, more Anchors were able to pick up signals. Except for the correspondence with Anchor 54, the RSSI values decreased with distance, as expected.

Position 3: (++)

The results from both trials were clear. The high RSSI values indicated that 239 was very close to Anchor 58. The natural experiment gave the expected results with fewer and weaker signals from Anchors that were further away. (The rigged experiment did indicate a signal from HandCleaner 103, which is puzzling because it should not have been pushed.)

Position 4: (~)
[Wrong graph ?]
Since position 4 was between all the points, a lot of Anchors were expected to respond to it. 51 was expected to respond to it at higher strengths because both were outside of the room. In the rigged experiment Anchors 49, 51, 53, and 54 responded at that expected RSSI values (49 > 51 > 53(avg) = 54). HandCleaner 100 responded with very high RSSI values as expected.

In the natural experiment, all of the Anchors responded with approximately equal response, which could be expected with someone moving around. However, Anchor 51 should have higher RSSI values to indicate out of the room, and this was not the case. It seems as though the Hand Cleaner was not activated during the natural trial.

Position 5:  (~)

Position 5 was in the middle of the middle room. Higher RSSI values were expected from Anchors 53 and 54. In the rigged trial, this gave the expected results from Anchor 54, which was a lot higher than 53. Anchors 49 and 48 also gave responses, but at lower RSSI values, as expected.

In the natural trial, higher RSSI values from 54 were also seen. The pattern followed the expected pattern with 53 and 54 having higher RSSI values than the other positions.

Perhaps the placement of Anchor 53 had something to do with the lower RSSI values received (?).

Position 6: (-)

In position 6, there should have been very high RSSI values between Anchor 53 and 239. In the rigged trial, this was not seen (the highest was with Anchor 48). The natural trial also showed the same trend. Among the Anchors, Anchor 53 always received the strongest signal, but 239 received pretty strong signals from Anchor 48.

Position 7: (~)

In position 7, the highest RSSI values were always from correspondence between 239 and Anchor 54, as expected. In both the rigged and natural experiments, the messages received by the Anchors seemed to follow the pattern expected, with 54 being the strongest then 53, 49, 48, 51. However, the messages received by 239 do not follow this pattern. For example, in the rigged trial, RSSI for Anchor 48 was greater than that from 49, which was not expected.

Position 8: (+)

The rigged trial went very well. The highest RSSI values corresponded to HandCleaner 102 talking with 239. Also, the difference between in the room and out of the room was seen because Anchor 51 gave the strongest signal among Anchors.

The natural trial also gave some expected responses. The highest RSSI was between HandCleaner 102 and 239. The next highest was from Anchor 49 which was in the room, this could have been expected because with moving around, 239 could have communicated with Anchors 49, 51, and 54 pretty well. The results support this with higher RSSI values with 49, 51, and 54 than those with 48 and 53.

Position 9: (+)

Position 9 was barely in the room, so higher RSSI values with 49 were expected. The rigged trial went well, showing this, and some correspondence at very low RSSIs with 51 and 54. The natural trial also followed this trend, except for some correspondence with Anchor 48 (noise) and some correspondence with HandCleaner 102 (?).

Position 10: (++)

Position 10 was deep in the room. High RSSI values were expected between Anchor 49 and 239. In both trials, this was seen. In the rigged trial, lower RSSIs were seen from Anchor 54, which was understandable because 54 was in the adjacent room. In the rigged trial, some RSSIs from 54 were also seen. But, Anchors 49 and 53 also talked to 239, but at lower RSSIs, indicating distance. This was good because the RSSI values reported decreased and distance increased, which is what is expected.

Position 11: (~)

Position 11 was at the nurse’s station. A high RSSI value between 239 and Anchor 51 was expected. The rigged trial followed this perfectly, with some action at very low RSSIs from Anchor 54. However, the natural trial did not go as well. Lots of signals were picked up from the different anchors. Overall the highest were from Anchors 51 and 48. The data was not as defined as with the rigged trial, but with moving around it could be accounted for. We did expect 51 to be the highest, but this was not as clear in the natural trial.

Overall, I would say the experiment went pretty well. Most of the trials weren’t too far away from what we were expecting. Some of them had iffy results, but for the most part the data confirmed what we expected to see. Some things to work on are: reducing noise by maybe repositioning the anchors and making RSSI values more defined- so in the room and out of the room are clearer (which could happen with the new antennae).