Effect of nonnormal random components on level and power in group-randomized trials

The use of group-randomized trials is particularly widespread in the evaluation of health care, educational, and screening strategies. Group-randomized trials represent a subset of a larger class of designs often labeled nested, hierarchical, or multilevel and are characterized by the randomization of intact social units or groups, rather than individuals. The application of random effects models to group-randomized trials requires the specification of fixed and random components of the model. The underlying assumption is usually that these random components are normally distributed. This research is intended to determine if the Type I error rate and power are affected when the assumption of normality for the random component representing the group effect is violated. ^ In this study, simulated data are used to examine the Type I error rate, power, bias and mean squared error of the estimates of the fixed effect and the observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) when the random component representing the group effect possess distributions with non-normal characteristics, such as heavy tails or severe skewness. The simulated data are generated with various characteristics (e.g. number of schools per condition, number of students per school, and several within school ICCs) observed in most small, school-based, group-randomized trials. The analysis is carried out using SAS PROC MIXED, Version 6.12, with random effects specified in a random statement and restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation specified. The results from the non-normally distributed data are compared to the results obtained from the analysis of data with similar design characteristics but normally distributed random effects. ^ The results suggest that the violation of the normality assumption for the group component by a skewed or heavy-tailed distribution does not appear to influence the estimation of the fixed effect, Type I error, and power. Negative biases were detected when estimating the sample ICC and dramatically increased in magnitude as the true ICC increased. These biases were not as pronounced when the true ICC was within the range observed in most group-randomized trials (i.e. 0.00 to 0.05). The normally distributed group effect also resulted in bias ICC estimates when the true ICC was greater than 0.05. However, this may be a result of higher correlation within the data. ^

Development of a standard sign-out procedure for clinicians in a pediatric intensive care unit

Background: Poor communication among health care providers is cited as the most common cause of sentinel events involving patients. Sign-out of patient data at the change of clinician shifts is a component of communication that is especially vulnerable to errors. Sign-outs are particularly extensive and complex in intensive care units (ICUs). There is a paucity of validated tools to assess ICU sign-outs. ^ Objective: To design a valid and reliable survey tool to assess the perceptions of Pediatric ICU (PICU) clinicians about sign-out. ^ Design: Cross-sectional, web-based survey ^ Setting: Academic hospital, 31-bed PICU ^ Subjects: Attending faculty, fellows, nurse practitioners and physician assistants. ^ Interventions: A survey was designed with input from a focus group and administered to PICU clinicians. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency and validity of the survey tool were assessed. ^ Measurements and Main Results: Forty-eight PICU clinicians agreed to participate. We had 42(88%) and 40(83%) responses in the test and retest phases. The mean scores for the ten survey items ranged from 2.79 to 3.67 on a five point Likert scale with no significant test-retest difference and a Pearson correlation between pre and post answers of 0.65. The survey item scores showed internal consistency with a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.85. Exploratory factor analysis revealed three constructs: efficacy of sign-out process, recipient satisfaction and content applicability. Seventy eight % clinicians affirmed the need for improvement of the sign-out process and 83% confirmed the need for face- to-face verbal sign-out. A system-based sign-out format was favored by fellows and advanced level practitioners while attendings preferred a problem-based format (p=0.003). ^ Conclusions: We developed a valid and reliable survey to assess clinician perceptions about the ICU sign-out process. These results can be used to design a verbal template to improve and standardize the sign-out process.^