Maximizing Sampling Efficiency

Harmon S. Jordan

Health Care Quality Program, RTI International, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/am.2013.411209                

Abstract

Background and Goals: Although health care quality improvement has traditionally involved extensive work with paper records, the adoption of health information technology has increased the use of electronic record and administrative systems. Despite these advances, quality improvement practitioners now and for the foreseeable future need guidance in defining populations of individuals for study and in selecting and analyzing sample data from such populations. Statistical data analysis in health care research often involves using samples to make inferences about populations. The investigator needs to consider the goals of the study, whether sampling is to be used, and the type of population being studied. While there are numerous sampling strategies designed to conserve resources and yield accurate results, one of these techniques—use of the finite population correction (FPC)—has received relatively little attention in health care sampling contexts. It is important for health care quality practitioners to be aware of sampling options that may increase accuracy and conserve resources. This article describes common sampling situations in which the issue of the finite population correction decision often arises. Methods: This article describes 3 relevant sampling situations that influence the design and analysis phases of a study and offers guidance for choosing the most effective and efficient design. Situation 1: The study or activity involves taking a sample from a large finite target population for which enumerative inferences are needed. Situation 2: The population is finite and the study is enumerative. A complete enumerative count of “defects” in the process is needed so that remediation can occur. Here, statistical inference is unnecessary. Situation 3: The target population is viewed as infinite; such populations are “conceptual populations” [1] or “processes”. Results: The article shows how savings in resources can be achieved by choosing the correct analytic framework at the conceptualization phase of study design. Choosing the right sampling approach can produce accurate results at lower costs. Several examples are presented and the implications for health services research are discussed. Conclusion: By clearly specifying the objectives of a study and considering explicitly whether the data are a sample or a population, the practitioner may be able to design a more efficient study and thereby conserve resources. This article provides a conceptual framework in the form of three situations, several examples, and an algorithm (Figure 1) to help the intervention planner determine how to classify the study and when to apply the FPC.

Keywords

Sampling; Finite Population Correction; FPC; Finite Population; Infinite Population

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	W. E. Deming, “On Probability as a Basis for Action,” American Statistician, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1975, pp. 146-152.
[2]	S. M. Berenholtz, D. M. Needham, L. H. Lubomski, C. A. Goeschel and P. J. Pronovost, “Improving the Quality of Quality Improvement Projects,” Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 36, No. 10, 2010, pp. 468-473.
[3]	“Glossary of Statistical Terms.” http://statistics.berkeley.edu/~stark/SticiGui/Text/gloss.htm
[4]	W. G. Cochran, “Sampling Techniques,” 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1977.
[5]	P. Levy and S. Lemeshow, “Sampling of Populations: Methods and Applications,” John Wiley, New York, 1991.
[6]	J. Cohen, “Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences,” 2nd Edition, Lawrence Erlbaumn Associates, Hillsdale, 1988.
[7]	B. Frilling, R. Schiele, A. K. Gitt, R. Zahn, S. Schneider, H. G. Glunz, et al., “Too Little Aspirin for Secondary Prevention after Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients at High Risk for Cardiovascular Events: Results from the Mitra Study,” American Heart Journal, Vol. 148, No. 2, 2004, pp. 306-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2004.01.027
[8]	G. A. Barnard, “Discussion of Paper by V.P. Godambe and M.E. Thompson, Bayes, Fiducial and Frequent Aspects of Regression Analysis in Survey Sampling,” Journals of the Royal Statistical Society B, Vol. 33, 1973, pp. 361-390.
[9]	W. G. Cochran, “The Use of Analysis of Variance in Enumeration by Sampling,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 34, No. 207, 1939, pp. 492-511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1939.10503549
[10]	G. J. Hahn and W. Q. Meeker, “Assumptions for Statistical Inference,” The American Statistician, Vol. 47, No. 1, 1993, pp. 1-11.
[11]	L. P. Provost, “Analytical Studies: A Framework for Quality Improvement Design and Analysis,” BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol. 20, No. Suppl. 1, 2011, pp. 92-96.
[12]	R. J. Perla, L. P. Provost and S. K. Murray, “Sampling Considerations for Health Care Improvement,” Quality Management in Health Care, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2013, pp. 36-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/QMH.0b013e31827deadb
[13]	D. M. Berwick, “Continuous Improvement as an Ideal in Health Care,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 320, No. 1, 1989, pp. 53-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198901053200110
[14]	W. E. Deming, “On the Interpretation of Censuses as Samples,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 36, No. 213, 1941, pp. 45-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1941.10502070
[15]	H. O. Hartley and J. Sielken, “A ‘Super-Population Viewpoint’ for Finite Population Sampling,” Biometrics, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1975, pp. 411-422. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529429
[16]	M. Elliott, A. Zaslavsky and P. Cleary, “Are Finite Population Corrections Appropriate When Profiling Institutions?” Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, 2006, pp. 153-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10742-006-0011-2
[17]	A. A. Gawande, D. M. Studdert, E. J. Orav, T. A. Brennan and M. J. Zinner, “Risk Factors for Retained Instruments and Sponges after Surgery,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 348, No. 3, 2003, pp. 229-235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa021721
[18]	Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Surveys on Patient Safety Culture.” http://www.ahrq.gov/legacy/qual/patientsafetyculture
[19]	J. de Baldwin, S. R. Daugherty and P. M. Ryan, “How Residents View Their Clinical Supervision: A Reanalysis of Classic National Survey Data,” Journal of Graduate Medical Education, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010, pp. 37-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-09-00081.1
[20]	“Estimation and Sample Size Determination for Finite Populations.” http://courses.wcupa.edu/rbove/Berenson/10th%20ed%20CD-ROM%20topics/section8_7.pdf
[21]	J. Cromwell, M. Trisolini, G. Pope, J. Mitchell and L. Greenwald, “Pay for Performance in Health Care: Methods and Approaches,” RTI International, Research Triangle Park, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2011.bk.0002.1103
[22]	P. T. Ross, E. T. McMyler, S. G. Anderson, K. A. Saran, A. Urteaga-Fuentes, R. C. Boothman, et al., “Trainees’ Perceptions of Patient Safety Practices: Recounting Failures of Supervision,” Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2011, pp. 88-95.
[23]	T. Hasegawa, S. Fujita, K. Seto, T. Kitazawa and K. Matsumoto, “Patients’ Identification and Reporting of Unsafe Events at Six Hospitals in Japan,” Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, Vol. 37, No. 11, 2011, pp. 502-508.
[24]	R. Coffey, M. Barrett, B. Houchens, K. Ho, E. Moy, J. Brady, et al., “National Healthcare Disparities Report, 2008. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (Hcup). Appendix B: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (Hcup),” 2008. http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/nhqrdr/nhdr08/methods/HCUP.html