Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Computing exact bundle compliance control charts via probability generating functions

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 02 September 2014

Abstract

Compliance to evidenced-base practices, individually and in ‘bundles’, remains an important focus of healthcare quality improvement for many clinical conditions. The exact probability distribution of composite bundle compliance measures used to develop corresponding control charts and other statistical tests is based on a fairly large convolution whose direct calculation can be computationally prohibitive. Various series expansions and other approximation approaches have been proposed, each with computational and accuracy tradeoffs, especially in the tails. This same probability distribution also arises in other important healthcare applications, such as for risk-adjusted outcomes and bed demand prediction, with the same computational difficulties. As an alternative, we use probability generating functions to rapidly obtain exact results and illustrate the improved accuracy and detection over other methods. Numerical testing across a wide range of applications demonstrates the computational efficiency and accuracy of this approach.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Bundle up for safety. Available at http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/ImprovementStories/BundleUpforSafety.aspx

  2. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2003. Clinical conditions and measures for reporting and incentives. Available at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/HospitalQualityInits/35_HospitalPremier.asp

  3. JCAHO (2006) Raising the bar with bundles: treating patients with an all-or-nothing standard. Joint Commission Perspectives on Patient Safety 6:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  4. McGClarkson D (2013) The role of ‘care bundles’ in healthcare. Br J Healthc Manag 19(2):63–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Berwick D, Calkins D, McCannon J, Hackbarth A (2006) The 100,000 lives campaign: setting a goal and a deadline for improving health care quality. J Am Med Assoc 295:324–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Resar R, Pronovost P, Haraden C, Simmonds T (2005) Using a bundle approach to improve ventilator care processes and reduce ventilator-associated pneumonia. Joint Commission Journal of Quality and Patient Safety 31(5):243–248

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fulbrook P, Mooney S (2003) Care bundles in critical care: a practical approach to evidence-based practice. Nursing in Critical Care 8:249–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rello J, Lode H, Cornaglia G, Masterson R (2010) A European care bundle for prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Intensive Care Med 36:773–780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Marwick C, Davey P (2009) Care bundle: the holy grail of infectious risk management in hospital? Curr Opin Infect Dis 22:364–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Benneyan J, Taseli A (2010) Exact and approximate probability distributions of evidence-based bundle composite compliance measures. Health Care Management Science 13(3):193–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Benneyan J, Borgman D, 2004. A useful J-binomial type distribution for non-homogeneous dichotomous events. Industrial Engineering Research Conference Proceedings, 1–6.

  12. Benneyan J, Harris B, Taseli A, 2007. Applications and approximations of heterogeneous weighted and unweighted j-binomial probability distributions. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering, 1910–1921.

  13. Wang Y (1993) On the number of success in independent trial. Stat Sin 3(2):295–312

    Google Scholar 

  14. Benneyan J, Borgman A (2003) Risk adjusted sequential probability ratio tests and longitudinal surveillance methods. Int J Qual Health Care 15(1):5–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Taseli A, Benneyan J, 2009. Risk adjusted spatial scan statistics, IIE Industrial Engineering Research Conference, 2289–2294.

  16. Chen B, Matis T, Benneyan J (2011) Improved one-sided control charts for the mean of a positively-skewed population using truncated saddlepoint approximations. Qual Reliab Eng Int 27(8):1043–1058

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hong Y (2013) On computing the distribution function for the Poisson binomial distribution. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis 59:41–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolfram Research Inc. Mathematica 7.0, 2008. http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/CoefficientList.html

  19. Nolan T, Berwick D (2006) All-or-none measurement raises the bar on performance. Journal of American Medical Association 295:1168–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Benneyan J (2008) Statistical performance of composite versus all-or-nothing measures of core measure bundle compliance: which is better? Quality and Safety in Health Care 17(3):227

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy Matis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, B., Matis, T. & Benneyan, J. Computing exact bundle compliance control charts via probability generating functions. Health Care Manag Sci 19, 103–110 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-014-9290-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-014-9290-2

Keywords

Navigation