Literature DB >> 23710661

The prognostic value of kidney transplant center report cards.

J D Schold1, L D Buccini, E L G Heaphy, D A Goldfarb, A R Sehgal, J Fung, E D Poggio, M W Kattan.   

Abstract

SRTR report cards provide the basis for quality measurement of US transplant centers. There is limited data evaluating the prognostic value of report cards, informing whether they are predictive of prospective patient outcomes. Using national SRTR data, we simulated report cards and calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMR) for kidney transplant centers over five distinct eras. We ranked centers based on SMR and evaluated outcomes for patients transplanted the year following reports. Recipients transplanted at the 50th, 100th and 200th ranked centers had 18% (AHR = 1.18, 1.13-1.22), 38% (AHR = 1.38, 1.28-1.49) and 91% (AHR = 1.91, 1.64-2.21) increased hazard for 1-year mortality relative to recipients at the top-ranked center. Risks were attenuated but remained significant for long-term outcomes. Patients transplanted at centers meeting low-performance criteria in the prior period had 40% (AHR = 1.40, 1.22-1.68) elevated hazard for 1-year mortality in the prospective period. Centers' SMR from the report card was highly predictive (c-statistics > 0.77) for prospective center SMRs and there was significant correlation between centers' SMR from the report card period and the year following (ρ = 0.57, p < 0.001). Although results do not mitigate potential biases of report cards for measuring quality, they do indicate strong prognostic value for future outcomes. Findings also highlight that outcomes are associated with center ranking across a continuum rather than solely at performance margins. © Copyright 2013 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23710661      PMCID: PMC3696034          DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12294

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Transplant        ISSN: 1600-6135            Impact factor:   8.086


  29 in total

1.  Cost of organ procurement and transplantation network data collection for a large transplant center.

Authors:  John P Roberts; Bev Nikolai; Steve Tomlanovich
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  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

3.  Prediction models assessing transplant center performance: can a little knowledge be a dangerous thing?

Authors:  J D Schold; R J Howard
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 8.086

4.  The risks of risk adjustment.

Authors:  L I Iezzoni
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-11-19       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Report of a consensus conference on transplant program quality and surveillance.

Authors:  B L Kasiske; M A McBride; D L Cornell; R S Gaston; M L Henry; F D Irwin; A K Israni; N W Metzler; K W Murphy; A I Reed; J P Roberts; N Salkowski; J J Snyder; S C Sweet
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 8.086

6.  The aggressive phenotype: center-level patterns in the utilization of suboptimal kidneys.

Authors:  J M Garonzik-Wang; N T James; K C Weatherspoon; N A Deshpande; J A Berger; E C Hall; R A Montgomery; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 8.086

7.  The association of community health indicators with outcomes for kidney transplant recipients in the United States.

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Laura D Buccini; Michael W Kattan; David A Goldfarb; Stuart M Flechner; Titte R Srinivas; Emilio D Poggio; Richard Fatica; Liise K Kayler; Ashwini R Sehgal
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2012-06

8.  The unintended consequences of publicly reporting quality information.

Authors:  Rachel M Werner; David A Asch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2005-03-09       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The association of candidate mortality rates with kidney transplant outcomes and center performance evaluations.

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Titte R Srinivas; Richard J Howard; Ian R Jamieson; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 4.939

10.  The pivotal impact of center characteristics on survival of candidates listed for deceased donor kidney transplantation.

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Jeffrey S Harman; Neale R Chumbler; R Paul Duncan; Herwig-Ulf Meier-Kriesche
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  1 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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.