## 4 Result and Discussion
The results were recorded in Tables 7-9 in order. Thread superposition occurred within the internal messaging processing and was handled with the use of JMS (Java Message Service) as Queue for a corrective measure. For the location of infusion pumps on the patient, the errors occurred when the patient was in the restroom, due to the restroom not having Wi-Fi installed and when the signal was not accurate due to the doors of patient rooms being left open, possibly interrupting signals. The dashboard monitored multiple signals coming from the same infusion pumps as there was a data update every 4 to 10 s which affected the current signals of moving targets. To increase the accuracy of temperature measurements, the thermal sensor was attached to the underarm and the target was switched from the patients to the nurses due to the effects of the thermal compression packs that some patients were receiving. The monitoring of the dashboards needed to be continuous at a fixed schedule. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Date** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 4**} \\ \hline
**Time** & **10:14** & **16:30** & **10:30** & **14:09** & **16:10** & **10:10** & **16:10** & **10:10** & **14:00** & **16:00** \\ \hline Real Temp 1 & 4.0 & 4.0 & 5.5 & 5.0 & 5.0 & 4.6 & 6.0 & 5.0 & 4.5 & 4.5 \\ \hline Dashboard 1 & 4.7 & 5.8 & 5.7 & 4.8 & 4.8 & 5.1 & 6.5 & 5.9 & 5.3 & 6.8 \\ \hline Real Temp 2 & 6.0 & 6.0 & 6.5 & 6.5 & 6.5 & 5.8 & 6.0 & 6.0 & 6.0 & 6.0 \\ \hline Dashboard 2 & 6.9 & 7.1 & 7.8 & 7.1 & 6.8 & 6.8 & 6.9 & 6.9 & 7.1 & 6.5 \\ \hline
**Date** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 5**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 6**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 7**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Day 8**} \\ \hline
**Time** & **10:10** & **16:00** & **10:22** & **14:30** & **16:20** & **10:10** & **14:25** & **16:37** & **10:43** & **14:14** & **16:54** \\ \hline Real Temp 1 & 4.5 & 6.0 & 3.0 & 4.0 & 4.0 & 3.0 & 4.5 & 4.0 & 4.5 & 5.0 & 4.0 \\ \hline Dashboard 1 & 4.7 & 7.0 & 2.5 & 4.4 & 4.9 & 3.5 & 5.1 & 3.9 & 4.9 & 5.4 & 3.7 \\ \hline Real Temp 2 & 6.0 & 6.0 & 6.0 & 7.0 & 6.0 & 7.0 & 6.0 & 7.0 & 6.0 & 7.0 & 7.0 \\ \hline Dashboard 2 & 6.8 & 6.9 & 6.8 & 6.8 & 7.3 & 6.7 & 6.8 & 6.7 & 6.6 & 6.8 & 6.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Temperatures of Pharmaceutical Refrigerators Using Hospital Network. Figure 11: Comparison Between the Data Collected using Hospital Network in Chart. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Monitoring Target**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sensor**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Comparison**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Trial Number**} \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** \\ \cline{5-8}  & & & **Time** & **8:10** & **8:20** & **8:11** & **8:40** & **9:10** & **8:22** \\ \hline Pharmaceutical & \multirow{2}{*}{PR1} & Real Temp & 7 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 5 & 6 \\ Refrigerators 1 & & Sensor Temp & 7.1 & 7 & 6.3 & 6.5 & 6.4 & 6.7 \\ \hline Pharmaceutical & \multirow{2}{*}{PR2} & Real Temp & 5 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 6 \\ Refrigerators 2 & & Sensor Temp & 6.1 & 6.2 & 6.2 & 6.3 & 6.4 & 6.1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Temperature of Pharmaceutical Refrigerators Monitored with Non-Hospital Network. Table 10 summarizes the results of the data collection of location tracking according to the three network methods, which suggests the difference between three network methods, range from 14.1% to 10.76% compared to Sigfox. Limitations of this study incorporate the security and privacy of the data collection, physical errors due to the materials used such as sensors and targets, and the errors occurred with the signals' superposition and interruption.