Literature DB >> 21980182

Outcome differences across transplant centers: comparison of two methods for public reporting.

Stefanos Zenios1, Glenn Atias, Charles McCulloch, Constantia Petrou.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Reporting of standardized patient and graft survival rates by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) aims to influence transplant centers to improve their performance. The methodology currently used is based on calculating observed-to-expected (OE) ratios for every center. Its accuracy has not been evaluated. Here, we compare the accuracy of standardized rates across centers with the OE method to an alternative generalized mixed-effect (ME) method. We also examine the association between public reporting and center outcome improvement. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Accuracy was measured as the root mean square error (RMSE) of the difference between standardized rates from one time period to standardized rates from a future time period. Data from the United States Renal Data System on all kidney transplants between January 1, 1996, and September 30, 2009 were analyzed.
RESULTS: The ME method had a 0.5 to 4.5% smaller RMSE than the OE method. It also had a smaller range between the 5(th) and 95(th) percentile centers' standardized rates: 7.5% versus 10.5% for 3-year graft survival and 4.7% versus 7.9% for 3-year patient survival. The range did not change after the introduction of public reporting in 2001. In addition, 33% of all deaths and 29% of all graft failures in the 3 years after transplant could be attributed to differences across centers.
CONCLUSIONS: The ME method can improve the accuracy of public reports on center outcomes. An examination of the reasons why public reports have not reduced differences across centers is necessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21980182      PMCID: PMC3255366          DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00300111

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol        ISSN: 1555-9041            Impact factor:   8.237


  8 in total

Review 1.  Cardiac surgery report cards: comprehensive review and statistical critique.

Authors:  D M Shahian; S L Normand; D F Torchiana; S M Lewis; J O Pastore; R E Kuntz; P I Dreyer
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 4.330

2.  Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts?

Authors:  Judith H Hibbard; Jean Stockard; Martin Tusler
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2003 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Authors:  Eric D Peterson; Matthew T Roe; Jyotsna Mulgund; Elizabeth R DeLong; Barbara L Lytle; Ralph G Brindis; Sidney C Smith; Charles V Pollack; L Kristin Newby; Robert A Harrington; W Brian Gibler; E Magnus Ohman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-04-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care?

Authors:  Martin N Marshall; Patrick S Romano; Huw T O Davies
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 2.038

5.  Analytical methods and database design: implications for transplant researchers, 2005.

Authors:  G N Levine; K P McCullough; A M Rodgers; D M Dickinson; V B Ashby; D E Schaubel
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 8.086

6.  Medicare program; hospital conditions of participation: requirements for approval and re-approval of transplant centers to perform organ transplants. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2007-03-30

Review 7.  Quality and consumer decision making in the market for health insurance and health care services.

Authors:  Jonathan T Kolstad; Michael E Chernew
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2008-11-24       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent.

Authors:  P D McGrath; D E Wennberg; J D Dickens; A E Siewers; F L Lucas; D J Malenka; M A Kellett; T J Ryan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-12-27       Impact factor: 56.272

  8 in total
  5 in total

1.  Association between kidney transplant center performance and the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis.

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Laura D Buccini; David A Goldfarb; Stuart M Flechner; Emilio D Poggio; Ashwini R Sehgal
Journal:  Clin J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 8.237

2.  National decline in donor heart utilization with regional variability: 1995-2010.

Authors:  K K Khush; J G Zaroff; J Nguyen; R Menza; B A Goldstein
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  The prognostic value of kidney transplant center report cards.

Authors:  J D Schold; L D Buccini; E L G Heaphy; D A Goldfarb; A R Sehgal; J Fung; E D Poggio; M W Kattan
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2013-05-24       Impact factor: 8.086

Review 4.  Program-specific reports: implications and impact on program behavior.

Authors:  Lisa B VanWagner; Anton I Skaro
Journal:  Curr Opin Organ Transplant       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.640

5.  Center Variation and the Effect of Center and Provider Characteristics on Clinical Outcomes in Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

Authors:  Anne Tsampalieros; Gregory A Knoll; Nicholas Fergusson; Alexandria Bennett; Monica Taljaard; Dean Fergusson
Journal:  Can J Kidney Health Dis       Date:  2017-10-19
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.