Monitoring-based and self-reported close-contact records in relation to ultra-wideband-derived proximity in a long-term care facility: a single-facility observational study

BackgroundIn long-term care facilities (LTCFs), close-contact identification often relies on staff recall and monitoring records because residents may be unable to self-report reliably. How these different record-generation processes relate to proximity-based sensor measurements in routine LTCF workflow remain unclear, and how such differences may influence contact-based decision-making in outbreak response is not well understood. MethodsWe conducted a five-day observational study in a Japanese LTCF using ultra-wideband (UWB) indoor positioning. Twenty-seven participants wore UWB tags, including 16 residents and 11 staff members; 10 staff members completed questionnaires. We compared UWB-derived proximity with questionnaire-derived contacts from staff self-report and monitoring-based proxy records, and assessed directional discrepancies under multiple distance-time thresholds. ResultsQuestionnaire-based records and UWB-derived proximity showed different patterns of discrepancy across contact types. Within this facility, resident-related monitoring-based proxy records showed relatively small directional discrepancies, whereas staff self-reports tended to identify additional resident-staff contacts under the baseline threshold ([≤]1.0 m for [≥]15 min). Several alternative thresholds were associated with discrepancies closer to zero than the baseline, although the apparent ranking varied by summary metric. ConclusionsIn this single-facility observational study, different contact-list generation processes were associated with different patterns of discrepancy relative to a proximity-based operational measure. These findings support interpretation in terms of workflow-specific contact-list generation rather than a single universally optimal threshold and may help inform facility-level review of contact identification practices in LTCFs. These findings support aligning contact identification strategies with facility-specific workflows to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of IPC practices in LTCFs.