Literature DB >> 25307038

Association between liver transplant center performance evaluations and transplant volume.

L D Buccini1, D L Segev, J Fung, C Miller, D Kelly, C Quintini, J D Schold.   

Abstract

There has been increased oversight of transplant centers and stagnation in liver transplantation nationally in recent years. We hypothesized that centers that received low performance (LP) evaluations were more likely to alter protocols, resulting in reduced rates of transplants and patients placed on the waiting list. We evaluated the association of LP evaluations and transplant activity among liver transplant centers in the United States using national Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data (January 2007 to July 2012). We compared the average change in recipient and candidate volume and donor and patient characteristics based on whether the centers received LP evaluations. Of 92 eligible centers, 27 (29%) received at least one LP evaluation. Centers without an LP evaluation (n = 65) had an average increase of 9.3 transplants and 14.9 candidates while LP centers had an average decrease of 39.9 transplants (p < 0.01) and 67.3 candidates (p < 0.01). LP centers reduced the use of older donors, donations with longer cold ischemia, and donations after cardiac death (p-values < 0.01). There was no association between the change in transplant volume and measured performance (R(2)  = 0.002, p = 0.91). Findings indicate a strong association between performance evaluations and changes in candidate listings and transplants among liver transplant centers, with no measurable improvement in outcomes associated with reduction in transplant volume. © Copyright 2014 The American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Donors and donation: extended criteria; Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR); ethics and public policy; graft survival; health services and outcomes research; liver transplantation/hepatology; organ procurement and allocation; patient survival; quality of care/care delivery

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25307038     DOI: 10.1111/ajt.12826

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


  5 in total

1.  Considering potential benefits and consequences of hospital report cards: what are the next steps?

Authors:  Jesse D Schold; Lauren Hersch Nicholas
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Transplant community perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of alternative quality metrics for regulation.

Authors:  Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Sheng Zhou; Alvin G Thomas; Dorry L Segev; Lauren H Nicholas
Journal:  Clin Transplant       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 2.863

3.  Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers: results of a national survey.

Authors:  Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Alvin G Thomas; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Macey L Henderson; Sarah S Stith; Dorry L Segev; Lauren Hersch Nicholas
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2018-06-10       Impact factor: 3.782

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

Review 5.  Mending a Broken Heart: Treatment of Stress-Induced Heart Failure after Solid Organ Transplantation.

Authors:  N Thao Galván; Kayla Kumm; Michael Kueht; Cindy P Ha; Dor Yoeli; Ronald T Cotton; Abbas Rana; Christine A O'Mahony; Glenn Halff; John A Goss
Journal:  J Transplant       Date:  2018-02-18
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.