Proportion of all variation in outcome that is attributable to differences between hospitals.
Advanced confounder control
Application
Approach
Interpretation
Propensity score (PS)
PS reflects probability of treatment
Derived for each patient using logistic regression model adjusted for all important factors available
Matching or weighting provides risk-adjusted association between treatment and outcome
Must be done carefully.
Important to report methodology and balance between matched groups in keeping with best practices.
Limitations and potential for unmeasured confounding must be discussed.
Instrumental variable (IV)
IV is highly correlated with treatment but unrelated to outcome
Good IV is typically unavailable, therefore surrogate ‘area-level’ measure of the process under evaluation is typically derived
Association between IV and outcome should approximate causal relationship.
Validity of the IV must be demonstrated.
Limitations of IV used must be discussed.
Geospatial analysis
Application
Approach
Interpretation
Access-to-care
Straight-line distance or time
(eg, air transport)
Network analysis to derive time or distance along public roads
(eg, road transport)
Service areas represent areas within defined distance or time categories
Estimates distance or time for injured patients to reach hospital via ground or air transport.
Can be used to quantify % of populations with specific categories of access-to-care.
Hot spot analysis
Outcomes or events are aggregated within the geographic unit of measurement (eg, ZIP codes)
Hot spot analysis compares value of each geographic area with those of surrounding geographic areas
Hot or cold spots are identified as 90%, 95%, or 99% outlier areas
Hot spots or cold spots should be evaluated to understand what is contributing to significantly higher-than-expected or lower-than-expected outcome rates.
Implications are proposed for changes in policy or trauma system design.