Application of power analysis to determine the optimal reporting time frame for use in statewide trauma system quality reporting.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Meaningful reporting of quality metrics relies on detecting a statistical difference when a true difference in performance exists. Larger cohorts and longer time frames can produce higher rates of statistical differences. However, older data are less relevant when attempting to enact change in the clinical setting. The selection of time frames must reflect a balance between being too small (type II errors) and too long (stale data). We explored the use of power analysis to optimize time frame selection for trauma quality reporting. METHODS: Using data from 22 Level III trauma centers, we tested for differences in 4 outcomes within 4 cohorts of patients. With bootstrapping, we calculated the power for rejecting the null hypothesis that no difference exists amongst the centers for different time frames. From the entire sample for each site, we simulated randomly generated datasets. Each simulated dataset was tested for whether a difference was observed from the average. Power was calculated as the percentage of simulated datasets where a difference was observed. This process was repeated for each outcome. RESULTS: The power calculations for the 4 cohorts revealed that the optimal time frame for Level III trauma centers to assess whether a single site's outcomes are different from the overall average was 2 years based on an 80% cutoff. CONCLUSION: Power analysis with simulated datasets allows testing of different time frames to assess outcome differences. This type of analysis allows selection of an optimal time frame for benchmarking of Level III trauma center data.