Steven Habbous1,2, Lianne Barnieh3, Kenneth Litchfield4, Susan McKenzie4, Marian Reich4, Ngan N Lam5, Istvan Mucsi6, Ann Bugeja7, Seychelle Yohanna8, Rahul Mainra9, Kate Chong4, Daniel Fantus10, G V Ramesh Prasad11, Christine Dipchand12, Jagbir Gill13, Leah Getchell4, Amit X Garg14,3. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada steven.habbous@ontariohealth.ca. 2. Quality, Measurement, and Evaluation, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Nephrology, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. 4. Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease, Canada. 5. Division of Nephrology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 6. Kidney Transplant Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 7. Division of Nephrology, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 8. Division of Nephrology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 9. Saskatchewan Transplant Program, Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 10. Department of Medicine, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 11. Kidney Transplant Program, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 12. Division of Nephrology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 13. Division of Nephrology, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 14. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients, providers, and potential living donors perceive the living kidney donor evaluation process to be lengthy and difficult to navigate. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We sought consensus on key terms and process and outcome indicators that can be used to measure how efficiently a transplant center evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor. Using a RAND-modified Delphi method, 77 participants (kidney transplant recipients or recipient candidates, living kidney donors or donor candidates, health care providers, and health care administrators) completed an online survey to define the terms and indicators. The definitions were then further refined during an in-person meeting with ten stakeholders. RESULTS: We identified 16 process indicators (e.g., average time to evaluate a donor candidate), eight outcome indicators (e.g., annual number of preemptive living kidney donor transplants), and two measures that can be considered both process and outcome indicators (e.g., average number of times a candidate visited the transplant center for the evaluation). Transplant centers wishing to implement this set of indicators will require 22 unique data elements, all of which are either readily available or easily collected prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of indicators through a consensus-based approach that may be used to monitor and improve the performance of a transplant center in how efficiently it evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients, providers, and potential living donors perceive the living kidney donor evaluation process to be lengthy and difficult to navigate. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We sought consensus on key terms and process and outcome indicators that can be used to measure how efficiently a transplant center evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor. Using a RAND-modified Delphi method, 77 participants (kidney transplant recipients or recipient candidates, living kidney donors or donor candidates, health care providers, and health care administrators) completed an online survey to define the terms and indicators. The definitions were then further refined during an in-person meeting with ten stakeholders. RESULTS: We identified 16 process indicators (e.g., average time to evaluate a donor candidate), eight outcome indicators (e.g., annual number of preemptive living kidney donor transplants), and two measures that can be considered both process and outcome indicators (e.g., average number of times a candidate visited the transplant center for the evaluation). Transplant centers wishing to implement this set of indicators will require 22 unique data elements, all of which are either readily available or easily collected prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of indicators through a consensus-based approach that may be used to monitor and improve the performance of a transplant center in how efficiently it evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Simon R Knight; Khoa N Cao; Matthew South; Nicki Hayward; James P Hunter; John Fox Journal: Transplantation Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Françoise G Pradel; Rahul Jain; C Daniel Mullins; Joseph A Vassalotti; Stephen T Bartlett Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Steven Habbous; Jennifer Arnold; Mehmet A Begen; Neil Boudville; Matthew Cooper; Christine Dipchand; Stephanie N Dixon; Liane S Feldman; Dariusz Goździk; Martin Karpinski; Scott Klarenbach; Greg A Knoll; Ngan N Lam; Krista L Lentine; Charmaine Lok; Eric McArthur; Susan McKenzie; Matthew Miller; Mauricio Monroy-Cuadros; Chris Nguan; G V Ramesh Prasad; Sebastian Przech; Sisira Sarma; Dorry L Segev; Leroy Storsley; Amit X Garg Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-03-24 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Steven Habbous; Justin Woo; Ngan N Lam; Krista L Lentine; Matthew Cooper; Marian Reich; Amit X Garg Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2018-09-20