Measuring Transplant Center Performance: The Goals Are Not Controversial but the Methods and Consequences Can Be

Overview

Journal Curr Transplant Rep

Date 2017 Oct 3

PMID 28966901

Citations 16

Authors

Colleen Jay

Jesse D Schold

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose Of Review: Risks of regulatory scrutiny has generated widespread concern about increasingly risk averse transplant center behaviors regarding both donor and candidate acceptance patterns. To address potential unintended consequences threatening access to care, we discuss recent changes in regulatory metrics and potential improvements in quality oversight of transplant centers.

Recent Findings: Despite many recent changes to one-year patient and graft survival regulatory criteria, the capacity to accurately identify true underperforming centers and avoiding false positive flagging remains an area of great concern. Numerous studies have demonstrated restrictions in transplant volume and access following transplant center flagging.

Summary: Current regulatory criteria are limited in their capacity to accurately identify poorly performing centers and potentially encourage risk-averse behavior by transplant centers. Efforts to address these concerns should focus on (1) improving risk-adjustment models with better data which captures the acuity of candidate and donor risk, (2) reconsidering primary outcomes measured to assess comprehensive transplant center performance, (3) improving education to address rational or perceived disincentives, and (4) using data more effectively to share best practices.

Citing Articles

COMPOSITE SCORES FOR TRANSPLANT CENTER EVALUATION: A NEW INDIVIDUALIZED EMPIRICAL NULL METHOD.

Hartman N, Messana J, Kang J, Naik A, Shearon T, He K Ann Appl Stat. 2024; 18(1):729-748.

PMID: 39281709 PMC: 11395314. DOI: 10.1214/23-aoas1809.

Health Care Provider Clustering Using Fusion Penalty in Quasi-Likelihood.

Liu L, He K, Wang D, Ma S, Qu A, Luan Y Biom J. 2024; 66(6):e202300185.

PMID: 39101657 PMC: 11568107. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.202300185.

Impact of institutional variables on centre performance in long-term survival after heart transplant.

McDonald W, Shorbaji K, Kilcoyne M, Few W, Welch B, Hashmi Z Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2024; 38(6).

PMID: 38870536 PMC: 11196378. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivae111.

Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation for Older Transplant Candidates: A New Microsimulation Model for Determining Risks and Benefits.

Kaufmann M, Tan J, Chertow G, Goldhaber-Fiebert J Med Decis Making. 2023; 43(5):576-586.

PMID: 37170943 PMC: 10330392. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231172169.

For better care we need better data: towards a national obstetrics registry.

Federspiel J, Kucirka L, Mallampati D, Wheeler S, Menard M, Hughes B Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022; 5(1):100787.

PMID: 36404523 PMC: 10065844. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100787.

References

Roberts J . Impact of outcomes monitoring on innovation and risk in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2012; 18 Suppl 2:S59-63. DOI: 10.1002/lt.23539. View

Salkowski N, Snyder J, Zaun D, Leighton T, Edwards E, Israni A . A scientific registry of transplant recipients bayesian method for identifying underperforming transplant programs. Am J Transplant. 2014; 14(6):1310-7. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12702. View

Schold J, Howard R . Prediction models assessing transplant center performance: can a little knowledge be a dangerous thing?. Am J Transplant. 2006; 6(2):245-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2005.01216.x. View

Massie A, Luo X, Chow E, Alejo J, Desai N, Segev D . Survival benefit of primary deceased donor transplantation with high-KDPI kidneys. Am J Transplant. 2014; 14(10):2310-6. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12830. View

Snyder J, Salkowski N, Zaun D, Leppke S, Leighton T, Israni A . New quality monitoring tools provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: CUSUM. Am J Transplant. 2014; 14(3):515-23. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12628. View

White S, Zinsser D, Paul M, Levine G, Shearon T, Ashby V . Patient selection and volume in the era surrounding implementation of Medicare conditions of participation for transplant programs. Health Serv Res. 2014; 50(2):330-50. PMC: 4369212. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.12188. View

Abecassis M, Burke R, Klintmalm G, Matas A, Merion R, Millman D . American Society of Transplant Surgeons transplant center outcomes requirements--a threat to innovation. Am J Transplant. 2009; 9(6):1279-86. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02606.x. View

Schold J, Buccini L, Goldfarb D, Flechner S, Poggio E, Sehgal A . Association between kidney transplant center performance and the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014; 9(10):1773-80. PMC: 4186511. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.02380314. View

Schold J, Srinivas T, Sehgal A, Meier-Kriesche H . Half of kidney transplant candidates who are older than 60 years now placed on the waiting list will die before receiving a deceased-donor transplant. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 4(7):1239-45. PMC: 2709520. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01280209. View

10.

Kasiske B, Snyder J, Matas A, Ellison M, Gill J, Kausz A . Preemptive kidney transplantation: the advantage and the advantaged. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2002; 13(5):1358-64. DOI: 10.1097/01.asn.0000013295.11876.c9. View

11.

Schold J, Buccini L, Srinivas T, Srinivas R, Poggio E, Flechner S . The association of center performance evaluations and kidney transplant volume in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2013; 13(1):67-75. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04345.x. View

12.

Rao P, Merion R, Ashby V, Port F, Wolfe R, Kayler L . Renal transplantation in elderly patients older than 70 years of age: results from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Transplantation. 2007; 83(8):1069-74. DOI: 10.1097/01.tp.0000259621.56861.31. View

13.

VanWagner L, Skaro A . Program-specific reports: implications and impact on program behavior. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2013; 18(2):210-5. PMC: 3725805. DOI: 10.1097/MOT.0b013e32835f07f8. View

14.

Abecassis M, Burke R, Cosimi A, Matas A, Merion R, Millman D . Transplant center regulations--a mixed blessing? An ASTS Council viewpoint. Am J Transplant. 2008; 8(12):2496-502. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02434.x. View

15.

Massie A, Segev D . Rates of false flagging due to statistical artifact in CMS evaluations of transplant programs: results of a stochastic simulation. Am J Transplant. 2013; 13(8):2044-51. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12325. View

16.

Schold J, Miller C, Henry M, Buccini L, Flechner S, Goldfarb D . Evaluation of Flagging Criteria of United States Kidney Transplant Center Performance: How to Best Define Outliers?. Transplantation. 2016; 101(6):1373-1380. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001373. View

17.

Buccini L, Segev D, Fung J, Miller C, Kelly D, Quintini C . Association between liver transplant center performance evaluations and transplant volume. Am J Transplant. 2014; 14(9):2097-105. DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12826. View

18.

Wolfe R, Ashby V, Milford E, Ojo A, Ettenger R, Agodoa L . Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplantation, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(23):1725-30. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199912023412303. View

19.

Schold J, Arrington C, Levine G . Significant alterations in reported clinical practice associated with increased oversight of organ transplant center performance. Prog Transplant. 2010; 20(3):279-87. DOI: 10.1177/152692481002000313. View

20.

Jay C, Washburn K, Dean P, Helmick R, Pugh J, Stegall M . Survival Benefit in Older Patients Associated With Earlier Transplant With High KDPI Kidneys. Transplantation. 2016; 101(4):867-872. PMC: 5292097. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001405. View