chapter 44: statistics and patient safety Flashcards

1
Q

rejects null hypothesis incorrectly -> falsely assumed there was a difference when no difference exists

A

type 1 error

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

rejects null hypothesis incorrectly -> falsely assumed there was a difference when no difference exists

A

type 1 error

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

accepts null hypothesis incorrectly because of small sample size -> the treatments are interpreted as equal when there is actually a difference

A

type 2 error

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

hypothesis that no difference exists between groups

A

null hypothesis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

p value that rejects the null hypothesis

A

p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

p value: > 95% likelihood that the difference between the populations is true

A

p

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

likelihood that the difference is not true and occurred by chance alone with p

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

spread of data around a mean

A

variance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

population

A

parameter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

most frequently occurring value

A

mode

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

average

A

mean

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

middle value of a set of data

A

median

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

prospective study with random assignment to treatment and non treatment groups

A

randomized controlled trial (avoids treatment biases)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

prospective study in which patient and doctor are blind to the treatment

A

double-blind controlled trial

- avoids observational bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

prospective study -> compares disease rate between exposed and unexposed groups (nonrandom assignment)

A

cohort study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

retrospective study in which those who have the disease are compared with a similar population who do not have the disease; the frequency of the suspected risk factor is then compared between the 2 groups

A

case-control study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

combining data from different studies

A

meta-analysis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

2 independent groups and variable is quantitative -> compares means (mean weight between 2 groups)

A

student’s t test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

variable is quantitative; before and after studies (e.g. weight before and after, drug versus placebo)

A

paired t tests

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

compares quantitative variables (means) for more than 2 groups

A

ANOVA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

compare categorical (qualitative) variables (race, sex, medical problems and diseases, medications)

A

nonparametric statistics

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

compares 2 groups with categorical (qualitative) variables (number of obese patients with and without diabetes versus number of non obese patients with and without diabetes)

A

chi-squared test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

small groups -> estimates survival

A

Kaplan-Meyer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

incidence in exposed / incidence in unexposed

A

relative risk

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
probability of making the correct conclusion = 1 - probability of type 2 error - likelihood that the conclusion of the test is true - larger sample size increases power of a test
power of test
26
number of people with disease in a population (Eg number of patents in US with colon CA) - long-standing disease increases prevalence
prevalence
27
number of new cases diagnosed over a certain time frame in a population (e.g. number of patients in the US newly diagnosed with colon CA in 2003)
incidence
28
ability to detect disease = true-positives/(true-positives+false-negatives) - indicates the number of people who have the disease who test positive
sensitivity with high sensitivity, a negative test result means patient is very unlikely to have disease
29
ability to state no disease is present = true-negatives/(true-negatives + false-positives) - indicates the number of people who do not have the disease who test negative
specificity with high specificity, a positive test result means patient is very likely to have disease
30
true-positives / (true-positive + false-positive) | - likelihood that with a positive result, the patient actually has the disease
positive predictive value
31
true-negatives / (true-negatives + false-negatives) | - likelihood that with a negative result, the patient does not have the disease
negative predictive value
32
depends on disease prevalence
predictive value
33
depends on disease prevalence
predictive value
34
accepts null hypothesis incorrectly because of small sample size -> the treatments are interpreted as equal when there is actually a difference
type 2 error
35
hypothesis that no difference exists between groups
null hypothesis
36
p value that rejects the null hypothesis
p
37
p value: > 95% likelihood that the difference between the populations is true
p
38
likelihood that the difference is not true and occurred by chance alone with p
less than 5%
39
spread of data around a mean
variance
40
population
parameter
41
most frequently occurring value
mode
42
average
mean
43
middle value of a set of data
median
44
prospective study with random assignment to treatment and non treatment groups
randomized controlled trial (avoids treatment biases)
45
prospective study in which patient and doctor are blind to the treatment
double-blind controlled trial | - avoids observational bias
46
prospective study -> compares disease rate between exposed and unexposed groups (nonrandom assignment)
cohort study
47
retrospective study in which those who have the disease are compared with a similar population who do not have the disease; the frequency of the suspected risk factor is then compared between the 2 groups
case-control study
48
combining data from different studies
meta-analysis
49
2 independent groups and variable is quantitative -> compares means (mean weight between 2 groups)
student's t test
50
variable is quantitative; before and after studies (e.g. weight before and after, drug versus placebo)
paired t tests
51
compares quantitative variables (means) for more than 2 groups
ANOVA
52
compare categorical (qualitative) variables (race, sex, medical problems and diseases, medications)
nonparametric statistics
53
compares 2 groups with categorical (qualitative) variables (number of obese patients with and without diabetes versus number of non obese patients with and without diabetes)
chi-squared test
54
small groups -> estimates survival
Kaplan-Meyer
55
incidence in exposed / incidence in unexposed
relative risk
56
probability of making the correct conclusion = 1 - probability of type 2 error - likelihood that the conclusion of the test is true - larger sample size increases power of a test
power of test
57
number of people with disease in a population (Eg number of patents in US with colon CA) - long-standing disease increases prevalence
prevalence
58
number of new cases diagnosed over a certain time frame in a population (e.g. number of patients in the US newly diagnosed with colon CA in 2003)
incidence
59
ability to detect disease = true-positives/(true-positives+false-negatives) - indicates the number of people who have the disease who test positive
sensitivity with high sensitivity, a negative test result means patient is very unlikely to have disease
60
ability to state no disease is present = true-negatives/(true-negatives + false-positives) - indicates the number of people who do not have the disease who test negative
specificity with high specificity, a positive test result means patient is very likely to have disease
61
true-positives / (true-positive + false-positive) | - likelihood that with a positive result, the patient actually has the disease
positive predictive value
62
true-negatives / (true-negatives + false-negatives) | - likelihood that with a negative result, the patient does not have the disease
negative predictive value
63
true-positives + true-negatives / true-positives+true-neg+false-pos+false-neg
accuracy
64
depends on disease prevalence
predictive value
65
are independent of prevalence
sensitivity and specificity
66
seeks to collect outcome date to measure and improve surgical quality in the US. outcomes are reported as observed vs expected ratios
National Surgery Quality Improvement Program (NQSIP)
67
JCAHO prevention of wrong site/procedure/patient protocol
- preop verification of patient and procedure - operative site and side - time out before incision is made (verifying patient, procedure, position site + side, and availability of implants or special requirements)
68
promoting culture of safety
- confidential system of reporting errors - emphasis on learning over accountability - flexibility in adapting to new situations or problems
69
risk factors for retained object after surgery (MC sponge)
emergency procedure, unplanned change in procedure, obesity, towel used for closure
70
unexpected occurrence involving death or serious injury, or the risk thereof; hospital undergoes root cause analysis to prevent and minimize future occurrences (Eg wrong site surgery)
sentinel event (JCAHO)
71
GAP protection technique
gaps in care (shift change, etc) can lead to loss of information and error. prevention - structured handoffs and checklists (face to face if possible; standardizing orders; reading back orders if verbal