Literature DB >> 29802802

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

Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen1, Alvin G Thomas1, Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang1, Macey L Henderson1, Sarah S Stith2, Dorry L Segev1,3, Lauren Hersch Nicholas1,4.   

Abstract

In the United States, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) provides publicly available quality report cards. These reports have historically rated transplant programs using a 3-tier system. In 2016, the SRTR temporarily transitioned to a 5-tier system, which classified more programs as under-performing. As part of a larger survey about transplant quality metrics, we surveyed members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and American Society of Transplantation (N = 280 respondents) on transplant center experiences with patient and payer responses to the 5-tier SRTR ratings. Over half of respondents (n = 137, 52.1%) reported ≥1 negative effect of the new 5-tier ranking system, including losing patients, losing insurers, increased concern among patients, and increased concern among referring providers. Few respondents (n = 35, 13.7%) reported any positive effects of the 5-tier ranking system. Lower SRTR-reported scores on the 5-tier scale were associated with increased risk of reporting at least one negative effect in a logistic model (P < 0.01). The change to a more granular rating system provoked an immediate response in the transplant community that may have long-term implications for transplant hospital finances and patient options for transplantation.
© 2018 Steunstichting ESOT.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients; quality of care/care delivery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29802802      PMCID: PMC6219856          DOI: 10.1111/tri.13282

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transpl Int        ISSN: 0934-0874            Impact factor:   3.782


  33 in total

1.  Young transplant surgeons and NIH funding.

Authors:  M J Englesbe; R S Sung; D L Segev
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 8.086

2.  American Society of Transplant Surgeons transplant center outcomes requirements--a threat to innovation.

Authors:  M M Abecassis; R Burke; G B Klintmalm; A J Matas; R M Merion; D Millman; K Olthoff; J P Roberts
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2009-04-10       Impact factor: 8.086

3.  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

4.  Increased Risk of Death for Patients on the Waitlist for Liver Transplant Residing at Greater Distance From Specialized Liver Transplant Centers in the United States.

Authors:  Luca Cicalese; Ali Shirafkan; Kristofer Jennings; Daria Zorzi; Cristiana Rastellini
Journal:  Transplantation       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.939

Review 5.  Current state of clinical end-points assessment in transplant: Key points.

Authors:  Domingo Hernández; Alfonso Muriel; Víctor Abraira
Journal:  Transplant Rev (Orlando)       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 3.943

6.  Accountability for end-stage organ care: implications of geographic variation in access to kidney transplantation.

Authors:  David A Axelrod; Krista L Lentine; Huiling Xiao; Thomas Bubolz; David Goodman; Richard Freeman; Janet E Tuttle-Newhall; Mark A Schnitzler
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2013-12-14       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  Impact of outcomes monitoring on innovation and risk in liver transplantation.

Authors:  John Paul Roberts
Journal:  Liver Transpl       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 5.799

8.  Do markets respond to quality information? The case of fertility clinics.

Authors:  M Kate Bundorf; Natalie Chun; Gopi Shah Goda; Daniel P Kessler
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  Association of Candidate Removals From the Kidney Transplant Waiting List and Center Performance Oversight.

Authors:  J D Schold; L D Buccini; E D Poggio; S M Flechner; D A Goldfarb
Journal:  Am J Transplant       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 8.086

10.  Patient selection and volume in the era surrounding implementation of Medicare conditions of participation for transplant programs.

Authors:  Sarah L White; Dawn M Zinsser; Matthew Paul; Gregory N Levine; Tempie Shearon; Valarie B Ashby; John C Magee; Yi Li; Alan B Leichtman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 3.402

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.