BLE - AoA vs UWB voor gezondheidszorg RTLS — wat past.
BLE-AoA and UWB are the two leading RTLS technologies for hospital deployments — clinical workflow, infant protection, hand-hygiene compliance, asset finding, patient elopement prevention.
The accuracy needed varies dramatically by use case, and the right choice is rarely "the more accurate one". This is the operator-level comparison for clinical engineering and IT teams choosing between them.
De nauwkeurigheidshiërarchie in de gezondheidszorg
Hospital use cases stack at different accuracy tiers. Room-level: asset finding, broad workflow attribution, patient location for billing. Bed-level: infant protection, equipment association with patient, fall prevention, medication-administration record matching.
Sub-decimetre: hand-hygiene compliance with confirmed point-of-care attribution, surgical-instrument tracking. UWB delivers all three. BLE-AoA delivers room and bed comfortably; sub-decimetre is harder but possible in dense deployments.
Tagbatterijbeheer — de operationele beslissende factor
Hospitals have hundreds to thousands of tagged staff, patients, beds and assets. BLE-AoA tags: 2–5 years on a coin cell. UWB tags: months to two years depending on update rate.
For a hospital fleet of 3,000 active tags, BLE-AoA's longer battery life reduces operational burden by 10× or more. Many large hospitals reject UWB on operational-overhead grounds even when accuracy is competitive.
Use-case fit
BLE-AoA wins: most asset tracking; clinical workflow attribution; bed-level infant protection (Quuppa-based systems are mainstream); broad hand-hygiene at room-level; equipment-utilisation analytics.
UWB wins: sub-decimetre hand-hygiene with confirmed point-of-care; surgical-instrument tracking; critical-care patient location with millisecond latency; high-density labour-and-delivery infant tagging.
Most hospital deployments mix both — UWB in the few zones that need it, BLE-AoA everywhere else.
Leverancierslandschap in de gezondheidszorg
BLE-AoA / multi-tech healthcare RTLS: Quuppa (BLE-AoA underlay), CenTrak (multi-tech: low-frequency RF + BLE + Wi-Fi; market leader in hospital RTLS), Stanley AeroScout (Wi-Fi based, healthcare-specific), Sonitor (ultrasound for bed-level certainty), Midmark RTLS.
UWB healthcare: BeWhere, Sewio (industrial-leaning but used in hospitals), Decawave-platform vendors. Most large hospital RTLS deployments are CenTrak or Stanley AeroScout for the broad footprint, with UWB or ultrasound for the few zones needing sub-decimetre.
EPD's en klinische integratie
Both ecosystems integrate into Epic, Cerner / Oracle Health, Meditech, Allscripts via standard interfaces (HL7 v2, FHIR, vendor-specific APIs).
Clinical workflow attribution ("who saw which patient when") requires correlating tag events with appointment data — the integration architecture matters more than the underlying radio.
We design integration in stage 1 — see /integrations/epic and /integrations/cerner-oracle-health.
Waar TRACIO elk aanbeveelt
Default to BLE-AoA for new hospital RTLS deployments where broad coverage matters: asset finding, workflow, infant protection, room-level hand hygiene. The operational advantage of multi-year battery life is decisive at hospital scale.
Add UWB in specific zones where sub-decimetre accuracy is non-negotiable: high-acuity hand hygiene with confirmed POC, surgical-instrument tracking, critical-care location.
Consider multi-tech RTLS (CenTrak, Stanley AeroScout) when you want a single platform vendor covering the full breadth — accepting that no single radio does everything optimally.
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat is beter voor babybescherming — BLE - AoA of UWB?
Beide werken. BLE - AoA-gebaseerde Quuppa-oplossingen zijn mainstream. UWB loopt uit in zeer dichte bevallingsunits waar subdecimeterzekerheid op bedniveau van belang is. De meeste implementaties zijn BLE - AoA.
Werken mijn bestaande Wi-Fi AP's voor RTLS?
De meeste ziekenhuis-Wi-Fi (Cisco, Aruba) ondersteunen BLE-positionering op kamerniveau — niet sub-meter AoA. Submeter vereist speciaal gebouwde BLE - AoA Locators (Quuppa) of verbeterde AP-modellen. We bepalen de juiste architectuur in fase 1.
Gebruikt CenTrak BLE - AoA of UWB?
CenTrak gebruikt een propriëtaire multi-tech stack — laagfrequente RF voor zekerheid, BLE en Wi-Fi voor bredere zichtbaarheid. Het is noch puur BLE - AoA noch UWB, maar een ziekenhuisgeoptimaliseerde hybride.
Hoe integreert dit met ons EPD (Epic / Cerner)?
Via HL7 v2 / FHIR en leveranciersspecifieke API's in Epic Rover en Cerner locatieservices. We ontwerpen EMR-integratie in fase 1 — zie /integrations/epic en /integrations/cerner-oracle-health.
Wat is de juiste volgorde van de inzet?
Typisch: fase 1, brede RTLS-dekking (BLE - AoA of multi-tech) voor het vinden van assets en workflow;
fase 2, voeg hoog-acuïteitzones toe (UWB of echografie) voor handhygiënetoeschouwing, bescherming van zuigelingen, tracking met chirurgische instrumenten. We definiëren fasen in fase 1 van /method.
Laatst bijgewerkt: