Author
Listed:
- Michele Scagliarini
- Nunzia Boccaforno
- Marco Vandi
Abstract
Statistical surveillance is a noteworthy endeavor in many health‐care areas such as epidemiology, hospital quality, infection control, and patient safety. For monitoring hospital adverse events, the Shewhart u‐control chart is the most used methodology. One possible issue of the u‐chart is that in health‐care applications the lower control limit (LCL) is often conventionally set to zero as the adverse events are rare and the sample sizes are not sufficiently large to obtain LCL greater than zero. Consequently, the control chart loses any ability to signal improvements. Furthermore, as the area of opportunity (sample size) is not constant over time, the in‐control and out‐of‐control run length performances of the monitoring scheme are unknown. In this article, on the basis of a real case and through an intensive simulation study, we first investigate the in‐control statistical properties of the u‐chart. Then we set up several alternative monitoring schemes with the same in‐control performances and their out‐of‐control properties are studied and compared. The aim is to identify the most suitable control chart considering jointly: the ability to detect unexpected changes (usually worsening), the ability to test the impact of interventions (usually improvements), and the ease of use and clarity of interpretation. The results indicate that the exponentially weighted moving average control chart derived under the framework of weighted likelihood ratio test has the best overall performance.
Suggested Citation
Michele Scagliarini & Nunzia Boccaforno & Marco Vandi, 2021.
"Comparison of control charts for Poisson count data in health‐care monitoring,"
Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 139-154, January.
Handle:
RePEc:wly:apsmbi:v:37:y:2021:i:1:p:139-154
DOI: 10.1002/asmb.2560
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:apsmbi:v:37:y:2021:i:1:p:139-154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1526-4025 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.