Would you still copy the highest-performing site?
Revise the steering recommendation when you learn that Site B left reopened cases out.
The question
A fictional steering group wants to copy a site's closure process. Its metric counts eligible cases closed on the first pass without reopening within seven days. Site A reports 18 of 20. Site B reports 20 of 20.
“Revise the steering recommendation when you learn that Site B left reopened cases out.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Confirm the decision
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Are we picking a process to copy, or looking for a site to study?
The strong move. The decision determines how much evidence is needed.
Ask for another month of figures
Tempting, but it misses something. More figures help after both sites apply the same rules.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Are we picking a process to copy, or looking for a site to study?”
Why it works: The decision determines how much evidence is needed.
Step 2: Check the counting rules
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Report B at one hundred percent with a caveat
Tempting, but it misses something. A caveat does not correct a known difference in counting rules.
Do both sites include all eligible cases and follow them for seven days?
The strong move. Rates are comparable only when eligibility and observation match.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Do both sites include all eligible cases and follow them for seven days?”
Why it works: Rates are comparable only when eligibility and observation match.
Step 3: Recalculate with the new evidence
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
B left out five cases that reopened within seven days. The numerator stays twenty and the denominator rises to twenty-five, so B is at eighty percent.
The strong move. Reopened cases are eligible but fail first-pass closure.
Add five to both numerator and denominator
Tempting, but it misses something. That counts reopened cases as first-pass closures.
See how a strong candidate says it
“B left out five cases that reopened within seven days. The numerator stays twenty and the denominator rises to twenty-five, so B is at eighty percent.”
Why it works: Reopened cases are eligible but fail first-pass closure.
Step 4: Revise the recommendation
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Adopt Site A's process across the group
Tempting, but it misses something. Use a limited trial first if the corrected comparison holds. Other site differences could explain the result.
If the windows and rules match, study Site A first. If they still differ, reconcile the cohorts before ranking.
The strong move. A corrected comparison changes which site you study. It does not establish which process caused the difference.
See how a strong candidate says it
“If the windows and rules match, study Site A first. If they still differ, reconcile the cohorts before ranking.”
Why it works: A corrected comparison changes which site you study. It does not establish which process caused the difference.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Check the counting rules and study Site A first if the cohorts match.
- Because
- Site A is at 90%. Corrected Site B is at 80%.
- What would change it
- Defer ranking if the eligibility rules or observation windows differ.
Common traps
- That counts reopened cases as first-pass closures.
Check your answer
- Confirm the decision
- Check the counting rules
- Recalculate with the new evidence
- Revise the recommendation
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026