Literature DB >> 24502435

New quality monitoring tools provided by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: CUSUM.

J J Snyder1, N Salkowski, D Zaun, S N Leppke, T Leighton, A K Israni, B L Kasiske.   

Abstract

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) has been providing data on transplant program performance through semi-annual release of program-specific reports (PSRs). A consensus conference held in February 2012 recommended that SRTR also supply transplant programs with tools such as the cumulative sum (CUSUM) technique to facilitate quality assessment and performance improvement. SRTR developed the process, methodologies, programming code and web capabilities necessary to bring the CUSUM charts to the community, and began releasing them to all liver, kidney, heart and lung programs in July 2013. Observed-minus-expected CUSUM charts provide a general picture of a program's performance (all-cause graft failure and mortality within the first-year posttransplant) over a 3-year period; one-sided charts can determine when performance appears to be sufficiently worrisome to warrant action by the program. CUSUM charts are intended for internal quality improvement by allowing programs to better track performance in near-real time and day to day, and will not be used to indicate whether a program will be flagged for review. The CUSUM technique is better suited for real-time quality monitoring than the current PSRs in allowing monthly outcomes monitoring and presenting data recorded as recently as 2 months before the release of the CUSUM charts. Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Graft survival; outcomes monitoring; patient survival; quality improvement

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24502435     DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12628

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


  5 in total

1.  Influence of kidney offer acceptance behavior on metrics of allocation efficiency.

Authors:  Andrew Wey; Nicholas Salkowski; Bertram L Kasiske; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 2.863

2.  Variability in donor organ offer acceptance and lung transplantation survival.

Authors:  Michael S Mulvihill; Hui J Lee; Jeremy Weber; Ashley Y Choi; Morgan L Cox; Babatunde A Yerokun; Muath A Bishawi; Jacob Klapper; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Matthew G Hartwig
Journal:  J Heart Lung Transplant       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 10.247

3.  Heart and lung organ offer acceptance practices of transplant programs are associated with waitlist mortality and organ yield.

Authors:  Andrew Wey; Maryam Valapour; Melissa A Skeans; Nicholas Salkowski; Monica Colvin; Bertram L Kasiske; Ajay K Israni; Jon J Snyder
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 8.086

4.  Measuring transplant center performance: The goals are not controversial but the methods and consequences can be.

Authors:  Colleen Jay; Jesse D Schold
Journal:  Curr Transplant Rep       Date:  2017-02-08

5.  Textbook Outcome as a Quality Metric in Living and Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation.

Authors:  Austin D Schenk; April J Logan; Jeffrey M Sneddon; Daria Faulkner; Jing L Han; Guy N Brock; William K Washburn
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 6.532

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.