Tre-
I think you’re going to have a real problem using a GPS receiver in a hospital environment. Knowing how those buldings are usually built, unless you have GPD repeaters on every floor, or are right up against a window facing the right part of the sky, you won’t get a usable 3D positioning fix.
The problem is that the L-band frequencies that the GPS downlink is on don’t travel thru concrete and steel, and the multipath distortion gets so bad inside a building because of that, the position fixes are generally tenuous at best, and definitely won’t be accurate enough to find someone more generally than “within 30m of the building, on one of 5 floors”, which may or may not be acceptable for you.
Also, unless your project is being supported by some member of th emedical community, you may run into trouble bringing a tranciever into a hospital. They try to regulate the emissions inside the buildings tightly,due to the effect that EMI can have on some of the more sensative equipment. Cellphones are generally required ot be turned off, tho I’ve seen a lot of people ignore that rule.
The way I’ve always contemplated doing something like this is either with a large mesh of RFID readers capable of a 2m range (>100V excitation, which may be verboten in a hospital) or a set of known power fixed beacons and positional triangulation based on received signal strength. Both put a lot of RF into the air, and both require significantly more hardware than just the subject tracking monitor.
Finally, the 2.4GHz tranceiver will have issues going around corners and through some walls, not only because it won’t go thru metal very well, but because 2.4GHz is one of the 'water bands", where water molecules are excitable, and suck up a ton of power. Human bodies, plants, etc all impact the signal transmission in the 1.2, 2.4, and 5.8GHz bands (the higher you go, the worse it is). Off the top of my head, I’d say 419/433mhz ISM would be a a better option, or perhaps something way down in the open 49MHz band.
If you manage to pull this off, I’ll be the first one to congratulate you, but I think the technocal obstacles need further investigation and perhaps a different approach.
-dave