| Literature DB >> 35329215 |
Ylenia Colella1, Antonio Saverio Valente1, Lucia Rossano1, Teresa Angela Trunfio2, Antonella Fiorillo2, Giovanni Improta3,4.
Abstract
Indoor air quality in hospital operating rooms is of great concern for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSI). A wide range of relevant medical and engineering literature has shown that the reduction in air contamination can be achieved by introducing a more efficient set of controls of HVAC systems and exploiting alarms and monitoring systems that allow having a clear report of the internal air status level. In this paper, an operating room air quality monitoring system based on a fuzzy decision support system has been proposed in order to help hospital staff responsible to guarantee a safe environment. The goal of the work is to reduce the airborne contamination in order to optimize the surgical environment, thus preventing the occurrence of SSI and reducing the related mortality rate. The advantage of FIS is that the evaluation of the air quality is based on easy-to-find input data established on the best combination of parameters and level of alert. Compared to other literature works, the proposed approach based on the FIS has been designed to take into account also the movement of clinicians in the operating room in order to monitor unauthorized paths. The test of the proposed strategy has been executed by exploiting data collected by ad-hoc sensors placed inside a real operating block during the experimental activities of the "Bacterial Infections Post Surgery" Project (BIPS). Results show that the system is capable to return risk values with extreme precision.Entities:
Keywords: fuzzy logic; indoor air quality; operating room; surgical site infection
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35329215 PMCID: PMC8955589 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of sensors in the OD (Rhombus indicate the EchoBeacon position).
Data collected by BLE devices.
| Type of Data | Format | Measuring Range | Unit of Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data | Data | dd/mm/yyyy | - |
| Hour | Hour | hh:mm:ss | - |
| Echo Beacon ID | Number | aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff | - |
| Beacon ID | Number | aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff | - |
| RSSI value | Number | −120/0 | dBm |
Data collected by the particle counter.
| Type of Data | Format | Measuring Range | Unit of Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data | Data | dd/mm/yyyy | - |
| Hour | Hour | hh:mm:ss | - |
| Particle Count (0.5 µm) | Number | 35.300.000 | particles/m3 |
Data collected by the multi-parameter tool.
| Type of Data | Format | Measuring Range | Unit of Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data | Data | dd/mm/yyyy | - |
| Hour | Hour | hh:mm:ss | - |
| Temperature | Number | −40/+150 | Celsius degree |
| Relative humidity | Number | 0%/100% | Percentage |
Figure 2Schema of the fuzzy inference system designed.
Ranges of the particle count and their respective fuzzy sets.
| Input | Range | Fuzzy Set |
|---|---|---|
| Particle count | <3.540 | Normal0 |
| 3.520–3.600 | High1 | |
| 3.580–3.700 | High2 | |
| >3.680 | High3 |
Figure 3PC membership functions.
Ranges of temperature and their respective fuzzy sets.
| Input | Range | Fuzzy Set |
|---|---|---|
| Temperature (°C) | <20 | Low2 |
| 18–26 | Normal0 | |
| >24 | High2 |
Figure 4T membership functions.
Ranges of relative humidity and their respective fuzzy sets.
| Input | Range | Fuzzy Set |
|---|---|---|
| Relative humidity | <40 | Low2 |
| 30–70 | Normal0 | |
| >60 | High2 |
Figure 5RH Membership functions.
Ranges of HWP and their respective fuzzy sets.
| Input | Range | Fuzzy Set |
|---|---|---|
| Correctness of healthcare workers’ path | −0.5–0.5 | Normal0 |
| 0.5–1.5 | High1 | |
| 1.5–2.5 | High2 | |
| 2.5–3.5 | High3 |
Figure 6HWP membership functions.
Paths and their respective fuzzy sets.
| Start Point | End Point | Fuzzy Set |
|---|---|---|
| Entrance | Operating room | High3 |
| Entrance | Sterilization room | High3 |
| Entrance | Break room | High2 |
| Entrance | Recovery room | High3 |
| Entrance | Warehouse | High1 |
| Sterilization room | Operating room | High1 |
| Changing room | Operating room | High3 |
| Warehouse | Operating room | High1 |
| Recovery room | Break room | High1 |
| Break room | Operating room | High1 |
Figure 7TPA membership functions.
Ranges of TPA and their respective fuzzy sets.
| Input | Range | Fuzzy Set |
|---|---|---|
| TPA | <11 | Normal0 |
| 10–13 | High1 | |
| 12.5–15.5 | High2 | |
| >15 | High3 |
Ranges of RG and their respective fuzzy sets.
| Output | Range | Fuzzy Set |
|---|---|---|
| RG (risk group) | 0 < RG < 0.5 | NRM |
| 0.5 < RG < 1.5 | LRG1 | |
| 1.5 < RG < 2.5 | LRG2 | |
| 2.5 < RG < 3.5 | LRG3 | |
| 3.5 < RG < 4.5 | LRG4 | |
| 4.5 < RG < 5.5 | HRG5 | |
| 5.5 < RG < 6.5 | HRG6 | |
| 6.5 < RG < 7.5 | HRG7 | |
| 7.5 < RG < 8.5 | HRG8 | |
| 8.5 < RG < 9.5 | HRG9 | |
| 9.5 < RG < 10.5 | HRG10 | |
| 10.5 < RG < 11.5 | HRG11 | |
| 11.5 < RG < 12.5 | HRG12 | |
| 12.5 < RG < 13.5 | HRG13 |
Figure 8RG membership functions.
Figure 9Fuzzy rules in Python.
Figure 10Results display for case study 1.
Figure 11Results display for case study 2.