Abstract
This paper performs a feasibility analysis to find the best-fitting solution in terms of quality/price ratio for designing and developing a Real-Time Location System for Indoor Positioning inside healthcare facilities. In particular, an overall comparison of all the available solutions is done, highlighting pros and cons of each technology (WiFi, RFID, WLAN, Ultra-Wide Band, Bluetooth Low Energy, ZigBee, magnetic fields, infrareds, ultrasounds, computer-vision and Pedestrian Data-Reckoning) for accuracy, price, coverage, infrastructure development and installation, and maintenance. A preliminary scope-review is also produced, which summarizes the obtained outcomes in similar studies. In the results section the proposed system is illustrated via flowcharts and block diagrams, both for off-site and on-site scenarios.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
Navigation portable applications have largely grown during the last years, especially because of the huge diffusion of smartphones with inner localization hardware, such as Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), wireless antennas (IEEE 802.11 WiFi and IEEE 802.15 Bluetooth) and inertial sensors. However, the majority of these applications works just for outdoor positioning and routing, due to their architecture based upon GPS (Global Positioning System) signals, which have extremely low power, therefore they cannot be received inside a building.
New technologies and algorithms have been developed and adopted during the recent years to face Indoor Positioning System (IPS), such as Radio-frequency Identification (RFID), Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN), Ultra-wide Band (UWB), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), ZigBee, magnetic fields, infrared (IR), ultrasounds (US) or computer-vision based systems [1,2,3].
Real-time Location Systems (RTLS) is a topic of research which is becoming wider and wider. No universal standard is currently available, due to the peculiarities of each building and to the positioning requirements each application has. In fact, mixed technologies are often implemented depending on the features of the spaces. The application architecture is also very heterogenous depending on the type of users it is developed for. A drive system for robots requires a millimetric precision while a public application for general users, needs less accuracy, but on the other hand, it must be compliant with multiple operative systems and hardware of different brands of smartphones. Moreover, some of these systems only works when additional infrastructures have been installed, which result in extra price and maintenance. Consequentially, the building and field of application affect the system and the algorithms to choose [4].
The scope of this paper is to find the best-fitting solution for developing a RTLS for the hospital of Le Scotte in Siena (Italy). The hospital is made out of 12 pavilions and covers an area of about 208,000 m2 with 800 beds and 8,100 rooms. Each pavilion is located on a topography which is largely hilly, thus the inner paths and alleys which link together different buildings are not on the same constant level throughout the hospital area. In fact, it is very likely to have the first or second basement storey of a building at the same elevation of the ground floor of an adjoining pavilion. This implies a very complex spatial management of the whole premise [5,6,7]. This spatial unicity together with the heterogeneity of the users of a hospital (patients with limited mobility, visitors, suppliers, technicians) represents a valid opportunity for implementing a navigation system in order to improve the user’s experience. The first obstacles which come to mind in applying such technology to a hospital is the limited availability of a consistent WiFi coverage throughout the whole premise together with the presence of a lot of metal devices, some of which may also be moved.
2 Methods
An Indoor Position System is a network of devices which allows accurate and real-time indoor people and items localization. Generally, an IPS can be divided in 3 main blocks:
-
Inner positioning system module
-
Navigation module
-
Human-machine interaction (HMI) module.
The first one estimates the user’s spatial position, the second one evaluates the available routes between the starting point and the final destination, while the latter improves the user’s interaction with the system and gives him/her useful instructions and information [1].
Several technologies are available for implementing the inner positioning system module, which can be categorised in: radio frequencies (WLAN, WiFi, RFID, UWB, ZigBee and Bluetooth), magnetic fields, computer-vision based systems, IR systems, US systems, Pedestrian Dead-Reckoning (PDR). Each of the above listed wireless technology utilises a dedicated positioning model which may change in terms of coverage and precision according to the selected medium (electromagnetic waves, optical waves or mechanical waves). The main criteria to keep in consideration while choosing the appropriate technology are: accuracy (the average Euclidian distance between the actual ground position and the estimated position coordinates), precision, coverage, scalability, medium and infrastructure, robustness, power consumption, price, usability, safety and privacy [1].
A list of all the available technologies follows, highlighting the pros and cons for each one (which are also summarised in Table 1).
-
1.
WiFi is a RF technology used in WLAN based upon the standard IEEE 802.11. IPS which uses WiFi infrastructure is often implemented in internal environments with an already existing access point (AP) architecture for data transferring. In order to adopt this technology for a full RTLS, multiple wireless access points (WAP) need to be installed so that the actual coverage can be increased, improving the accuracy of localizing items and people, with smartphones acting as wireless clients. In WiFi RTLS, the accuracy is about 3–5 m, which is a non-acceptable value for the scope of this study, even though new approaches are being developed to improve the precision of the measurement [8,9,10]. Another disadvantage is the lack of API for indoor localization via WiFi for iOS devices. Apple Inc. Stopped designing and deploying API for signal strength detection via WAP. This results in a practical difficulty in designing a universal system, requiring the installation of iBeacon as a support for Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) [11].
-
2.
RFID systems are made of tags which contain data that can be recovered with a radiofrequency reader by employing the Received Signal Strength (RSS), the Angle of Arrival (AOA), the Time of Arrival (TOA) or the Time Difference of Arrival (TDOA) for estimating their position. RFID tags can be active, passive or semi-active. Current RTLS based on RFID use passive tags because they do not need any internal power supply: the radio waves emitted by the reader provide sufficient energy to transmit the whole data. This results in a limited reading area of a few meters: the price of the system is kept low, but the number of needed antennas increase. Another problem which need to be faced when adopting passive tagging is whenever the reader is not able to evaluate multiple responses from different tags at the same time (collision), affecting the scalability. Moreover, metals may cause electromagnetic interferences and distortions. Finally, all the above-cited approaches, except RSS, may not be able to accurately estimate the tag position in an indoor environment.
-
3.
UWB is a radio technology that can use a very low energy level for short-range, high-bandwidth communications over a large portion of the radio spectrum. They ensure very precise spatial position estimation with deviation of about 0.01 m and a wide signal coverage of about 30 m. The high-bandwidth ensures a high data-transfer speed together with a high robustness, also in a multipath environment. The system uses TOA, AOA, TDOA and RSS for position estimation just like RFID. UWB is the most accurate system but it is very expensive due to its type of tag and infrastructure. Besides, the installation may also be very complex [12].
-
4.
ZigBee is an IEEE 802.15.4-based specification for a suite of high-level communication protocols used to create personal area networks with small, low-power digital radios, designed for small scale projects which need wireless connection. Hence, Zigbee is a low-power and close proximity (i.e., personal area) wireless ad hoc network. The high coverage (between 10 and 100 m) and the low-power working rate is however at the expense of the data rate and precision (about 5 m).
-
5.
Bluetooth Low Energy (Bluetooth LE or BLE) is a wireless personal area network technology designed and marketed by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (Bluetooth SIG). Compared to Classic Bluetooth, BLE is intended to provide considerably reduced power consumption and price while maintaining a similar communication range. Mobile operating systems including iOS, Android, Windows Phone and BlackBerry, as well as macOS, Linux, Windows 8 and Windows 10, natively support Bluetooth Low Energy. Bluetooth beacons are usually used as RF sources to trace the devices’ position by implementing proximity detection, RSS fingerprinting or trilateration. Accuracy is of 2–3 m, with a coverage of 10–20 m (which can be widen at the expense of the battery duration).
-
6.
Magnetic fields localization systems rely on the interferences caused by structural steel elements of the building to the earth magnetic field, which produce unique magnetic prints. This technique finds numerous advantages, such as no pre-implemented infrastructure, low price and no influences by human bodies or any other kind of barriers. Geomagnetic field ensures high precision despite a low-energy consumption with a subsequent mobile battery saving [13]. However, it may not perform well in a large area [4, 14] and it takes long time to build the initial magnetic map, which also needs updates every time a metal asset or furniture is added or removed to the scene [15].
-
7.
Vision-based approach utilises computer-vision algorithm to place an image framed by a smartphone inside a 3D scene, by recognizing key items, shapes or texts. This technology offers scalable systems at a low price, but it affects the accuracy because the device needs to remain in a stable vertical position while targeting key pictures [16].
-
8.
Infrared positioning systems are based upon IR receivers which can establish the location of IR transmitters spread throughout the building. IR have a very restricted coverage and require a Line of Sight (LoS) between transmitters and receivers. Furthermore, they are very sensitive to interferences of other IR sources (such as the sun itself) and they also need expensive hardware and maintenance.
-
9.
Ultrasounds can also be used to define the position of ultrasonic tags, in addition to radio waves and IR. Unfortunately, US are more sensitive to obstacles then radio waves, and they are obviously also sensitive to sound interferences and to the heat [17].
-
10.
Pedestrian Dead-Reckoning (PDR) technique estimates the position of a device by knowing its starting point, direction and travelled distance. Smartphones have one or more built-in inertial sensors (accelerometer, gyroscope) to perform the desired evaluation. Usually, these systems obtain the starting position by using other methodologies and then use the smartphone’s accelerometer to get to know when and where the user steps over. Position is evaluated at every step by using the previous known position: in the long run, this brings to an additive error reliant to the sensor’s precision (drift-error). On the other hand, these systems do not need any external infrastructure and they are not subject to external interferences.
Some of the described technologies can be already excluded from this study because they do not have properties which well suit the features of a healthcare facility: US and IR systems are too sensitive to interference with very common signal sources for hospitals, and ZigBee is specifically designed for low-scale projects. Moreover, UWB is excluded due to its high price. RFID is often used in hospitals for medical device [18] and patient tracking [19] or sampling recording, but it is not a successful solution for RTLS purposes [2, 20].
The remaining technologies (WiFi, BLE, magnetic field, computer vision and PDR) are analysed in detail by comparing the dedicated literature in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.
3 Results
The ideal solution for the main scope of this project, a RTLS for indoor navigation of patients and general users throughout Le Scotte Hospital of Siena, would be the adoption of a hybrid system with Augmented Reality (AR) techniques with QR-code identification wherever a junction is, in order to re-calibrate the position, magnetic field systems along the hallways, WiFi and BLE to better perform in terms of accuracy, and PDR algorithms (Fig. 1).
Unfortunately, this solution results in a very expensive system, because it would require a massive WiFi coverage and iBeacons for iOS compatibility. Furthermore, the system itself would also need frequent re-calibration due to the normal moving of metal medical devices through the facility [44]. A better solution, in terms of price/quality ratio is the adoption of an AR system wherever the environment is wider and more complex. PDR can be used along the hallways, by implementing equally spaced QR-code to perform re-calibration of devices to avoid drift-error divergency (Figs. 2 and 3).
Two different scenarios must be taken into consideration: off-site and on-site navigation. The former helps the users to prior analyse the route of interest before reaching the hospital, while the latter guides the users to the desired destination step by step, directly in place.
3.1 Off-Site Navigation
For off-site navigation the best designing option is a web-site with 2D digital plan navigation and virtual touring [45]. BIM data are used to obtain 3D images of the inner structure of the hospital, while panorama pictures, which are directly attached on the 3D model, are the main inputs for a virtual tour recreation: it offers navigation by images of the site with manual scrolling. The chosen software for this particular task is Unity 3D, because it is easily programmable via Javascript and C#, a lot of online helping material is available and freely accessible, and it also has cross-platform compatibility, avoiding dedicated Android and iOS programming. In particular, Navigation Mesh (NavMesh) functionality of Unity, may be helpful to find the shortest path between two given points once a 3D model is loaded into the software (Fig. 4). BIM data can also be used to extract 2D information for digital plan navigation [46,47,48].
3.2 On-Site Navigation
When users are right on place, an easier way to guide them from their current position to the desired destination must be designed. During this preliminary designing phase, easy-access routing is not taken into consideration, because it requires different types of navigation according to the disabilities of the users, which is postponed to future development (Fig. 5).
In this scenario, a mobile-application is the best solution, because it can easily access the hardware of the device itself (accelerometer, gyroscope, camera), which is mandatory to perform the chosen hybrid RTLS (Chapter 2). The main problem when it comes to mobile application deploying, is the different framework each Operative System (iOS and Android) is compliant to. The adoption of cross-platform deploying framework, such as Apache Cordova or Xamarin, is the best option to avoid redundant programming and maintenance. These frameworks allow natively programming in Javascript, C#, HTML5, CSS, and then to compile the code for Android and iOS by using inner libraries. Apache Cordova has been chosen among the various possibilities because it can easily communicate with the needed hardware via API, in order to perform AR, QR-code identifying and PDR algorithms.
4 Conclusions
This work presented different solutions for indoor Real-Time Location System. WiFi, WLAN, UWB, BLE, magnetic fields, infrareds, ultrasounds, computer-vision and PDR have all been analysed and compared in terms of accuracy, coverage, price, installation complexity and maintenance. Actually, the main scope is to design a RTLS for both on-site and off-site navigation, for hospitals and healthcare facilities. The case study the project is focuses to is Le Scotte Hospital in Siena (Italy), so that the peculiarities of the premise have also been taken into consideration when it came to choose the best-fitting solution.
The result is a hybrid system, which combined computer-vision and PDR technologies, together with simple QR-coding. A web-site with virtual touring and plain map navigation developed with Unity 3D is the solution adopted for off-site navigation, while a mobile application with actual RTLS functionalities developed by using the cross-platform framework Apache Cordova, is the chosen solution for on-site IPS.
Future works will surely consist in developing and deploying the system, testing it on the case-study hospital, and they may also include easy-access routing for people with disabilities.
References
Kunhoth, J., Karkar, A., Al-Maadeed, S., et al.: Indoor positioning and wayfinding systems: a survey. Hum. Cent. Comput. Inf. Sci. 10, 18 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13673-020-00222-0
Pancham, J., Millham, R., Fong, S.J.: Evaluation of real time location system technologies in the health care sector. In: Proceedings of the 2017 17th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications, ICCSA 2017 (2017)
Mainetti, L., Patrono, L., Sergi, I.: A survey on indoor positioning systems. In: 2014 22nd International Conference on Software, Telecommunications and Computer Networks, SoftCOM 2014, vol. 2014, pp. 111–120 (2014)
Perez-Navarro, A., Montoliu, R., Torres-Sospedra, J., Conesa, J.: Magnetic field as a characterization of wide and narrow spaces in a real challenging scenario using dynamic time warping. In: 9th International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation, IPIN 2018 (2018)
Iadanza, E., Luschi, A., Gusinu, R., Terzaghi, F.: Designing a healthcare computer aided facility management system: a new approach. In: Badnjevic, A., Škrbić, R., Gurbeta Pokvić, L. (eds.) CMBEBIH 2019. IP, vol. 73, pp. 407–411. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17971-7_61
Iadanza, E., Luschi, A.: An integrated custom decision-support computer aided facility management informative system for healthcare facilities and analysis. Health Technol. 10(1), 135–145 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12553-019-00377-6
Luschi, A., Marzi, L., Miniati, R., Iadanza, E.: A custom decision-support information system for structural and technological analysis in healthcare. In: Roa Romero, L. (eds.) XIII Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2013. IFMBE Proceedings, vol. 41, pp. 1350–1353. Springer, Cham (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00846-2_334
Ibrahim, M., Nabil, T., Halawa, H.H., ElSayed, H.M., Daoud, R.M., Amer, H.H., et al.: Fuzzy-based Wi-Fi localisation with high accuracy using fingerprinting. Int. J. Syst. Control Commun. 9(1), 1–19 (2018)
Chervoniak, Y., Gorovyi, I.: Mobile indoor navigation: from research to production. In: 2019 Signal Process Symposium, SPSympo 2019, pp. 96–99 (2019)
Cui, Y., Zhang, Y., Wang, Z., Fu, H.: Integrated WiFi/MEMS indoor navigation based on searching space limiting and self-calibration. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 45(4), 3015–3024 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-019-04249-z
Li, X.J., Bharanidharan, M.: RSSI fingerprinting based iphone indoor localization system without Apple API. Wirel. Pers. Commun. 112(1), 61–74 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-019-07015-4
Jachimczyk, B.: Real-Time Locating Systems for Indoor Applications: The Methodological Customization Approach. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden (2019)
Chen, L., Wu, J., Yang, C.: MeshMap: a magnetic field-based indoor navigation system with crowdsourcing support. IEEE Access 8, 39959–39970 (2020)
Bhattarai, B., Yadav, R.K., Gang, H.S., Pyun, J.Y.: Geomagnetic field based indoor landmark classification using deep learning. IEEE Access. 7, 33943–33956 (2019)
Benedetti, M., Bononi, L., Bedogni, L.: Un algoritmo di geolocalizzazione indoor basato su magnetismo. Alma Mater Studiorum, Università di Bologna (2016)
Möller, A., Kranz, M., Huitl, R., Diewald, S., Roalter, L.: A mobile indoor navigation system interface adapted to vision-based localization. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, MUM 2012 (2012)
Iadanza, E., Turillazzi, B., Terzaghi, F., Marzi, L., Giuntini, A., Sebastian, R.: The streamer European project. Case study: Careggi Hospital in Florence. In: Lacković, I., Vasic, D. (eds.) 6th European Conference of the International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering. IP, vol. 45, pp. 649–652. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11128-5_162
Iadanza, E., Dori, F., Miniati, R., Corrado, E.: Electromagnetic interferences (EMI) from Active RFId on critical care equipment. In: Bamidis, P.D., Pallikarakis, N. (eds.) XII Mediterranean Conference on Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing 2010. IFMBE Proceedings, vol. 29. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13039-7_251
Iadanza, E., Dori, F.: Custom active RFId solution for children tracking and identifying in a resuscitation ward. In: Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society: Engineering the Future of Biomedicine, EMBC 2009, pp. 5223–5226 (2009). Art. no. 5333497
Gholamhosseini, L., Sadoughi, F., Safaei, A.: Hospital real-time location system (a practical approach in healthcare): a narrative review article. Iran J. Pub. Health 48(4), 593–602 (2019)
Sadowski, S., Spachos, P.: Comparison of RSSI-based indoor localization for smart buildings with Internet of Things. In: 2018 IEEE 9th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference, IEMCON 2018, vol. 2018, pp. 24–29 (2018)
Wang, X., Gao, L., Mao, S.: BiLoc: bi-modal deep learning for indoor localization with commodity 5 GHz WiFi. IEEE Access 5, 4209–4220 (2017)
Joseph, R., Sasi, S.: Indoor positioning using WiFi fingerprint, pp. 1–3 (2018)
Yu, J., Na, Z., Liu, X., Deng, Z.: WiFi/PDR-integrated indoor localization using unconstrained smartphones. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw. 2019(1), 1–13 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13638-019-1365-9
Abdulkarim, H.D., Sarhang, H.: Normalizing RSS values of Wi-Fi access points to improve an integrated indoors smartphone positioning solutions. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Engineering Conference, IEC 2019, vol. 2019, pp. 171–176 (2019)
Tian, Z., Fang, X., Zhou, M., Li, L.: Smartphone-based indoor integrated WiFi/MEMS positioning algorithm in a multi-floor environment. Micromachines 6(3), 347–363 (2015)
Selamat, M.H., Narzullaev, A.: Wi-Fi signal strength vs. magnetic fields for indoor positioning systems. Eurasian J. Math. Comput. Appl. 2(2), 122–133 (2014)
Bellutagi, G.S., Priya, D., Amith, M.: Indoor navigation using QR code, Pedometer and IBeacon. In: 2nd International Conference on Computational Systems and Information Technology for Sustainable Solutions, CSITSS 2017, pp. 36–43 (2017)
Chirakkal, V., Park, M., Han, D.S., Shin, J.-H.: An efficient and simple approach for indoor navigation using smart phone and QR code (2014)
Real Ehrlich, C., Blankenbach, J.: Indoor localization for pedestrians with real-time capability using multi-sensor smartphones. Geo-Spatial Inf. Sci. 22(2), 73–88 (2019)
Park, J.W., Chen, J., Cho, Y.K.: Self-corrective knowledge-based hybrid tracking system using BIM and multimodal sensors. Adv. Eng. Inf. 1(32), 126–138 (2017)
Lee, N., Ahn, S., Han, D.: AMID: accurate magnetic indoor localization using deep learning. Sensors 18(5), 1–6 (2018)
Ning, F.S., Chen, Y.C.: Combining a modified particle filter method and indoor magnetic fingerprint map to assist pedestrian dead reckoning for indoor positioning and navigation. Sensors (Switz.) 20(1), 185 (2020)
Li, Y., Zhuang, Y., Lan, H., Zhou, Q., Niu, X., El-Sheimy, N.: A Hybrid WiFi/magnetic matching/PDR approach for indoor navigation with smartphone sensors. IEEE Commun. Lett. 20(1), 169–172 (2016)
Ashraf, I., Hur, S., Shafiq, M., Kumari, S., Park, Y.: GUIDE: smartphone sensors-based pedestrian indoor localization with heterogeneous devices. Int. J. Commun. Syst. 32, 1–9 (2019)
Chen, Y., Zhou, M., Zheng, Z.: Learning sequence-based fingerprint for magnetic indoor positioning system. IEEE Access 7, 163231–163244 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2952564
Shu, Y., Bo, C., Shen, G., Zhao, C., Li, L., Zhao, F.: Magicol: indoor localization using pervasive magnetic field and opportunistic WiFi sensing. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 33(7), 1443–1457 (2015)
Li, P., Yang, X., Yin, Y., Gao, S., Niu, Q.: Smartphone-based indoor localization with integrated fingerprint signal. IEEE Access 8, 33178–33187 (2020)
Elloumi, W., Latoui, A., Canals, R., Chetouani, A., Treuillet, S.: Indoor pedestrian localization with a smartphone: a comparison of inertial and vision-based methods. IEEE Sens. J. 16(13), 5376–5388 (2016)
Zhou, Y., Li, G., Wang, L., Li, S., Zong, W.: Smartphone-based pedestrian localization algorithm using phone camera and location coded targets. In: Proceedings of 5th IEEE Conference on Ubiquitous Positioning, Indoor Navigation and Location-Based Services, UPINLBS 2018, pp. 1–7 (2018)
Huang, G., Hu, Z., Wu, J., Xiao, H., Zhang, F.: WiFi and vision integrated fingerprint for smartphone-based self-localization in public indoor scenes. IEEE Internet Things J. 4662(c), 1–16 (2020)
Kunhoth, J., Karkar, A., Al-Maadeed, S., Al-Attiyah, A.: Comparative analysis of computer-vision and BLE technology based indoor navigation systems for people with visual impairments. Int. J. Health Geogr. 18(1), 1–18 (2019)
Neges, M., Koch, C., König, M., Abramovici, M.: Combining visual natural markers and IMU for improved AR based indoor navigation. Adv. Eng. Inf. 31, 18–31 (2017)
Iadanza, E., Marzi, L., Dori, F., Biffi Gentili, G., Torricelli, M.C.: Hospital health care offer. A monitoring multidisciplinar approach. In: Magjarevic, R., Nagel, J.H. (eds.) World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2006. IFMBE Proceedings, vol. 14, pp. 3685–3688. Springer, Heidelberg (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-36841-0_933
Snopková, D., Švedová, H., Kubíček, P., Stachoň, Z.: Navigation in indoor environments: does the type of visual learning stimulus matter? ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 8(251), 26 (2019)
Iadanza, E., Luschi, A., Ancora, A.: Bed management in hospital systems. In: Lhotska, L., Sukupova, L., Lacković, I., Ibbott, G.S. (eds.) World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2018. IP, vol. 68/3, pp. 313–316. Springer, Singapore (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-9023-3_55
Luschi, A., Monti, M., Iadanza, E.: Assisted reproductive technology center design with quality function deployment approach. In: Jaffray, D.A. (ed.) World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, June 7-12, 2015, Toronto, Canada. IP, vol. 51, pp. 1587–1590. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19387-8_386
Iadanza, E., Luschi, A., Merli, T., Terzaghi, F.: Navigation algorithm for the evacuation of hospitalized patients. In: Lhotska, L., Sukupova, L., Lacković, I., Ibbott, G.S. (eds.) World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering 2018. IP, vol. 68/3, pp. 317–320. Springer, Singapore (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-9023-3_56
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Falleri, N., Luschi, A., Gusinu, R., Terzaghi, F., Iadanza, E. (2021). Designing an Indoor Real-Time Location System for Healthcare Facilities. In: Hasic Telalovic, J., Kantardzic, M. (eds) Mediterranean Forum – Data Science Conference. MeFDATA 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1343. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72805-2_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72805-2_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72804-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72805-2
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)