## 4 Analysis of the Cellular Coverage Results  
The results of the measurements conducted with the NARDA SRM-3006 revealed important details about the distribution of cellular coverage at CHUCB. Several power peaks were identified at different frequencies, indicating the presence of some technologies, such as 5G NR and LTE, in various areas of the hospital. For example, the frequency of 760 MHz, associated with 5G NR technology, showed a significant peak, suggesting adequate coverage of this technology, in some of the considered measurement points. However, at higher frequencies, such as 2568 MHz, the coverage proved to be irregular.  
Although the data obtained with the NARDA SRM-3006 allowed mapping some areas of the hospital that present significant coverage challenges, the level of detail was not sufficient. It became necessary to conduct additional measurements, with greater coverage, to more accurately determine the received power levels, frequencies, and available operators at CHUCB. Thus, new measurements were carried out using the R&S\({}^{\otimes}\)TSME6 scanner, allowing for a more expedient identification of the operating frequencies and their respective operators.  
Upon conducting a more detailed analysis of the measurement points, based on the new results, it was found that, at points 21, 23, and the entrance to the outpatient consultations, the 5G NR technology provided the best signal coverage. In contrast, at points 13, 17, and 19, it was the LTE technology that demonstrated better coverage. Overall, the LTE technology showed the best performance regarding power values and signal indicators (RSSI, NRSSI, RSCP). Moreover, both LTE and 5G NR technologies were present at all six measurement points analyzed, with LTE technology achieving the best coverage, except at the entrance to the outpatient consultations, where 5G NR showed superior coverage.  
Regarding the operators, the results indicate that MEO and NOS were present at all six measurement points analyzed, while the Vodafone operator was absent at some of these points. In a comparative analysis between the two most frequently present operators (MEO and NOS), it was found that MEO provided better signal coverage at more points, for the four tested technologies (5G NR, LTE, NB-IoT, and UMTS).  
Based on these results, for the analyzed technologies (LTE, UMTS, 5G NR, and NB-IoT), the zones requiring coverage improvement are mainly points 13, 17, and 21. These points recorded more frequent occurrences of weak signal, with points 17 and 21 showing the absence of some technologies, namely NB-IoT and UMTS at point 17, and UMTS at point 21. The analysis of results from this study reveals significant implications for hospital connectivity reliability. In multiple measurements, signal strength indicators for certain technologies fell below \(-85\) dBm, which is beneath the generally recommended threshold for reliable communications in clinical environments. As emphasized by [PERSON] et al. [7], hospital networks require consistent coverage to support proper operation of connected medical devices, while [PERSON] et al. [16] underscore how connectivity failures can compromise remote patient monitoring. These coverage gaps reinforce the need for targeted solutions such as the use of femtocells.  
Although the data extracted from nPerf coverage maps do not fully represent the indoor environment of the hospital, they provide a complementary perspective on the evolution of cellular coverage in its surroundings. From the results obtained in 2025, MEO continues to have a considerably good coverage, with evidence of 5G coverage in the entrance to the outpatient consultations. For NOS, there is now evidence of good 5G coverage in the Emergency Service entrance, not well covered in our 2022 field tests. Vodafone also improved its coverage (4G, 4G+ in the entrance to the outpatient consultations), and clear evidence of good 5G coverage in the entrance of the Emergency Service.