Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Transplant Program Performance Monitoring

  • OPTN Policy (K Andreoni, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Transplantation Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review will describe the authority to and the process by which the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, Membership and Process Standards Committee develops new metrics to monitor transplant program performance. A new conceptual paradigm will be proposed to more holistically evaluate performance.

Recent Findings

The discussion around which metrics are suitable to monitor transplant program performance has been robust. The current metric of post-transplant patient and graft survival is outdated and may be incentivizing unwanted behaviors. There have been many new metrics proposed. However very few meet the necessary criteria of falling within the domain of authority of the OPTN, having reliable and reproducibly measured data, having a clearly defined and desired outcome, and being an outcome that the transplant program can impact independently of other components of the transplant system.

Summary

Better and more modern metrics are needed to more holistically monitor transplant program performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

MPSC:

Membership and Professional Standards Committee

NOTA:

National Organ Transplant Act

OPTN:

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network

SRTR:

Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1966;44(3):Suppl:166–206.

  2. Doby BL, Ross-Driscoll K, Shuck M, Wadsworth M, Durand CM, Lynch RJ. Public discourse and policy change: absence of harm from increased oversight and transparency in OPO performance. Am J Transplant. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.16527.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Schold JD, Arrington CJ, Levine G. Significant alterations in reported clinical practice associated with increased oversight of organ transplant center performance. Prog Transplant. 2010;20(3):279–87. https://doi.org/10.7182/prtr.20.3.bj6mh237p6912251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. •Chandraker A, Andreoni KA, Gaston RS, Gill J, Locke JE, Mathur AK, et al. Time for reform in transplant program-specific reporting: AST/ASTS transplant metrics taskforce. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(7):1888–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.15394Summarizes the guiding principles for metrics as put forward by the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. McDiarmid SV, Pruett TL, Graham WK. The oversight of solid organ transplantation in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2008;8(4):739–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2007.02147.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. National Organ Transplant Act. https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/senate-bill/2048/text. Accessed June 29 2021.

  7. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network - Final Rule. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=bb60e0a7222f4086a88c31211cac77d1&mc=true&node=pt42.1.121&rgn=div5. Accessed Jume 29 2021.

  8. Federal Register 2019–20736. https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-20736. Accessed June 29 2021.

  9. Jay C, Schold JD. Measuring transplant center performance: the goals are not controversial but the methods and consequences can be. Curr Transplant Rep. 2017;4(1):52–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40472-017-0138-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Schold JD, Buccini LD, Goldfarb DA, Flechner SM, Poggio ED, Sehgal AR. Association between kidney transplant center performance and the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(10):1773–80. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.02380314.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. United States Renal Data System 2019 Annual Data Report Reference Table I.2adj. https://www.usrds.org/annual-data-report/. Accessed June 29 2021.

  12. Choi AY, Mulvihill MS, Lee HJ, Zhao C, Kuchibhatla M, Schroder JN, et al. Transplant center variability in organ offer acceptance and mortality among US patients on the heart transplant waitlist. JAMA Cardiol. 2020;5(6):660–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0659.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Merion RM, Schaubel DE, Dykstra DM, Freeman RB, Port FK, Wolfe RA. The survival benefit of liver transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2005;5(2):307–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00703.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vock DM, Durheim MT, Tsuang WM, Finlen Copeland CA, Tsiatis AA, Davidian M, et al. Survival benefit of lung transplantation in the modern era of lung allocation. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017;14(2):172–81. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201606-507OC.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cooper M, Formica R, Friedewald J, Hirose R, O’Connor K, Mohan S, et al. Report of national kidney foundation consensus conference to decrease kidney discards. Clin Transplant. 2019;33(1):e13419. https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.13419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Heilman RL, Green EP, Reddy KS, Moss A, Kaplan B. Potential impact of risk and loss aversion on the process of accepting kidneys for transplantation. Transplantation. 2017;101(7):1514–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000001715.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lilford R, Mohammed MA, Spiegelhalter D, Thomson R. Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet. 2004;363(9415):1147–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)15901-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. ••Schold JD, Axelrod DA. Changing our prior assumptions: adapting to new bayesian transplant center report cards. Am J Transplant. 2014;14(6):1231–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.12704Provides data that links post-transplant outcomes with pre-transplant outcomes and therefore supports the need to develop pre-transplant metrics to assess transplant program performance.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wey A, Gustafson SK, Salkowski N, Kasiske BL, Skeans M, Schaffhausen CR, et al. Association of pretransplant and posttransplant program ratings with candidate mortality after listing. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(2):399–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.15032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chakkera HA, Angadi SS, Heilman RL, Kaplan B, Scott RL, Bollempalli H et al. Cardiorespiratory Fitness (Peak Oxygen Uptake): Safe and effective measure for cardiovascular screening before kidney transplant. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(11). https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.118.008662.

  21. Wey A, Valapour M, Skeans MA, Salkowski N, Colvin M, Kasiske BL, et al. Heart and lung organ offer acceptance practices of transplant programs are associated with waitlist mortality and organ yield. Am J Transplant. 2018;18(8):2061–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.14885.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Wey A, Salkowski N, Kasiske BL, Israni AK, Snyder JJ. Influence of kidney offer acceptance behavior on metrics of allocation efficiency. Clin Transplant. 2017;31(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/ctr.13057.

  23. Mohan S, Foley K, Chiles MC, Dube GK, Patzer RE, Pastan SO, et al. The weekend effect alters the procurement and discard rates of deceased donor kidneys in the United States. Kidney Int. 2016;90(1):157–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kint.2016.03.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Goldberg DS, French B, Lewis JD, Scott FI, Mamtani R, Gilroy R, et al. Liver transplant center variability in accepting organ offers and its impact on patient survival. J Hepatol. 2016;64(4):843–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2015.11.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. ••Mulvihill MS, Lee HJ, Weber J, Choi AY, Cox ML, Yerokun BA, et al. Variability in donor organ offer acceptance and lung transplantation survival. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2020;39(4):353–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healun.2019.12.010Describes a new method of assessing long-term outcomes in transplant recipients.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Wey A, Hart A, Salkowski N, Skeans M, Kasiske BL, Israni AK, et al. Posttransplant outcome assessments at listing: long-term outcomes are more important than short-term outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2020;20(10):2813–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.15911.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. ••Salkowski N, Snyder JJ, Zaun DA, Leighton T, Edwards EB, Israni AK, et al. A scientific registry of transplant recipients bayesian method for identifying underperforming transplant programs. Am J Transplant. 2014;14(6):1310–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.12702Describes the process with which the SRTR develops and validates the statistical models used to assess transplant program performance.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Snyder JJ, Salkowski N, Kim SJ, Zaun D, Xiong H, Israni AK, et al. Developing statistical models to assess transplant outcomes using national registries: the process in the United States. Transplantation. 2016;100(2):288–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/TP.0000000000000891.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Snyder JJ, Salkowski N, Wey A, Israni AK, Schold JD, Segev DL, et al. Effects of high-risk kidneys on scientific registry of transplant recipients program quality reports. Am J Transplant. 2016;16(9):2646–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13783.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was funded by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Healthcare Systems Bureau, Division of Transplantation under contract number HHSH250201900001C, and was conducted under the auspices of the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), the contractor for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The interpretation and reporting of these data are the responsibility of the author(s) and in no way should be seen as an official policy of or interpretation by the OPTN or the US Government.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yale University School of Medicine, Boardman 124, 330 Cedar Street, P.O. Box 208029, New Haven, CT, 0652, USA

    Sharon Shepherd & Richard N. Formica

Authors
  1. Sharon Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard N. Formica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard N. Formica.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on OPTN Policy

Sharon Shepherd is the Project Manager, OPTN/Membership and Professional Standards Committee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shepherd, S., Formica, R.N. Improving Transplant Program Performance Monitoring. Curr Transpl Rep 8, 293–300 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40472-021-00344-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40472-021-00344-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation