Report of a Consensus Conference on Transplant Program Quality and Surveillance

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

doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04130.x

Back

Report of a Consensus Conference on Transplant Program Quality and Surveillance

Journal article

Open access

Peer reviewed

Report of a Consensus Conference on Transplant Program Quality and Surveillance

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, …

American journal of transplantation, Vol.12(8), pp.1988-1996

08/01/2012

DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04130.x

PMID: 22682114

Files and links (1)

url

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04130.xView

Published (Version of record) Open Access

Abstract

Public reports of organ transplant program outcomes by the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients have been both groundbreaking and controversial. The reports are used by regulatory agencies, private insurance providers, transplant centers and patients. Failure to adequately adjust outcomes for risk may cause programs to avoid performing transplants involving suitable but high-risk candidates and donors. At a consensus conference of stakeholders held February 1315, 2012, the participants recommended that program-specific reports be better designed to address the needs of all users. Additional comorbidity variables should be collected, but innovation should also be protected by excluding patients who are in approved protocols from statistical models that identify underperforming centers. The potential benefits of hierarchical and mixed-effects statistical methods should be studied. Transplant centers should be provided with tools to facilitate quality assessment and performance improvement. Additional statistical methods to assess outcomes at small-volume transplant programs should be developed. More data on waiting list risk and outcomes should be provided. Monitoring and reporting of short-term living donor outcomes should be enhanced. Overall, there was broad consensus that substantial improvement in reporting outcomes of transplant programs in the United States could and should be made in a cost-effective manner.

Surgery

Life Sciences & Biomedicine

Science & Technology

Transplantation

Details

Title: Subtitle: Report of a Consensus Conference on Transplant Program Quality and Surveillance
Creators: B. L. Kasiske - Hennepin County Medical Center
M. A. McBride - United Network for Organ Sharing, Richmond, Virginia
D. L. Cornell
R. S. Gaston - University of Alabama at Birmingham
M. L. Henry - The Ohio State University
F. D. Irwin - UnitedHealth Group (United States)
A. K. Israni - Hennepin County Medical Center
N. W. Metzler - University of Rochester
K. W. Murphy - Franklin, North Carolina
A. I. Reed - University of Iowa
J. P. Roberts - University of California, San Francisco
N. Salkowski
J. J. Snyder - University of Minnesota
S. C. Sweet - Washington University in St. Louis
Resource Type: Journal article
Publication Details: American journal of transplantation, Vol.12(8), pp.1988-1996
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2012.04130.x
PMID: 22682114
NLM abbreviation: Am J Transplant
ISSN: 1600-6135
eISSN: 1600-6143
Publisher: Wiley
Number of pages: 9
Grant note: Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation HHSH250201000018C / Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients
Language: English
Date published: 08/01/2012
Academic Unit: Accounting; Surgery
Record Identifier: 9984322802002771

Metrics

42 Record Views

71 Times Cited - Web of Science