Current Transplantation Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 59–66 | Cite as

A Look into a New Approach to Transplant Program Evaluation—the COIIN Project

  • David K. KlassenEmail author
  • Maureen A. McBride
  • Henrisa Tosoc-Haskell
OPTN Policy (K Andreoni, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on OPTN Policy


Purpose of Review

Current kidney transplant program performance assessment metrics are reviewed, including their use by regulatory entities, and a new approach to program assessment, the Collaborative Innovation and Improvement Network (COIIN), is described.

Recent Findings

Current kidney transplant program performance assessment is based on 1-year patient and graft survival data. Program specific reports used by the OPTN, CMS, and third-party payers have resulted in risk-averse clinical decision making by transplant programs limiting the transplantation of less than ideal kidneys and access to transplantation for increased risk recipient candidates. In response, HRSA has funded the COIIN project as an alternative performance monitoring approach based on a data-rich, real-time, collaborative, monitoring framework. The goal is to reduce risk-avoidance decision making allowing the transplantation of a broader range of kidneys into appropriate recipients.


The COIIN project is a 3-year effort being piloted in a diverse group of transplant programs as an alternative to current performance metrics. If successful, this may replace the current performance monitoring system.


COIIN Risk aversion Performance metrics Program specific reports Kidney transplantation MPSC CMS Collaborative innovation and improvement network HRSA OPTN 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Henrisa Tosoc-Haskell reports that she is a director of Member Quality at United Network of Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement Transplant Network, a contractor under the direction of HRSA. David Klassen and Maureen McBride declare no conflict of interests.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


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

  1. 1.
    • Klassen DK, Edwards LB, Stewart DE, Glazier AK, Orlowski JP, Berg CL. The OPTN deceased donor potential study: implications for policy and practice. Am J Transplant. 2016;16:1707–14. This article identifies older and less than ideal donors as the group containing the unrealized donor potential.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Snyder JJ, Salkowski N, Wey A, Israni AK, Schold JD, Kasiske DL. Effects of high-risk kidneys on Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients program quality reports. Am J Transplant. 2016;16:2646–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod DA, Friedewald JJ. Utilizing high-risk kidneys—risks, benefits, and unintended consequences? Am J Transplant. 2016;16:2514–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    VanWagner LB, Skaro AL. Program-specific reports: implications and impact on program behavior. Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2013;18:210–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Hamilton TE. Regulatory oversight in transplantation: are the patients really better off? Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2013;18:203–9. This article presents the CMS perspective on transplant performance assessment and shows that programs improve outcomes after being cited by CMS for low performance.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Axelrod DA. Balancing accountable care with risk aversion: transplantation as a model. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:7–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schold JD, Srinivas TR, Howard RJ, Jamieson IR, Meier-Kriesche H. The association of candidate mortality rates with kidney transplant outcomes and center performance evaluations. Transplantation. 2008;85:1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Schold JD, Buccini LD, Srinivas TR, Srinivas RT, Poggio ED, Flechner SM, Soria C, Segev DL, Fung J, Goldfarb DA. The association of center performance evaluations and kidney transplant volume in the United States. Am J Transplant. 2013;13:67–5. This article shows that transplant programs cited for low performance respond by decreasing transplant volumes.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Schold JD, Buccini LD, Poggio ED, Klechner SM, Goldfarb DA. Association of candidate removals from the kidney transplant waiting list and center performance oversight. Am J Transplant. 2016;16:1276–84. This article shows the association between low performance evaluations and transplant center processes of care for waitlisted candidates. Low performing centers remove candidates from their waiting list.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    • White SL, Zinsser DM, Levine GN, Shearon T, Ashby VB, Magee JC, Li Y, Leichtman AB. Patient selection and volume in the era surrounding implementation of Medicare conditions of participation for transplant programs. Health Serv Res. 2015;50:330–50. Centers with CMS COP noncompliance decrease their use of high KDPI kidneys.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Schold JD, Buccini LD, Goldfarb DA, Flechner SM, Poggio ED, Sehgall AR. Association between kidney transplant center performance and the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9:1773–80. Stewart DE, Garcia VC, Rosendale JD, Klassen DK, Carrico BJ. This is a widely cited article that demonstrates that there is a large survival benefit of transplantation relative to remaining on dialysis at even the lowest performing transplant centers.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stewart DE, Garcia VC, Rosendale JD, Klassen DK, Carrico BJ. Diagnosing the decades-long rise in the deceased donor kidney discard rate in the US. Transplantation (in press).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    • Massie AB, Lou X, Chow EK, Alejo JL, Desai NM, Segev DL. Survival benefit of primary deceased donor transplantation with high-KDPI kidneys. Am J Transplant. 2014;14:2310–6. This article shows the survival benefit from transplantation with high KDPI kidneys in selected patient groups and at centers with longer waiting times.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rose C, Schaeffner E, Frei U, Gill J, Gill JS. A lifetime of allograft function with kidneys from older donors. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2015;26:2483–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Axelrod DA, Schold J. Measuring what matters. Am J Transplant (in press).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abecassis MM, Burke R, Klintmalm GB, Matas AJ, Merion RM, Millman D, Olthoff K, Roberts JP. American Society of Transplant Surgeons transplant center outcomes requirements—a threat to innovation. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:1279–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    • Kasiske BL, McBride MA, Cornell DL, Gaston RS, Henry ML, Irwin FD, Israni AK, Metzler NW, Murphy KW, Reed AI, Roberts JP, Salkowski N, Snyder JJ, Sweet SC. Report of a consensus conference on transplant program quality and surveillance. Am J Transplant. 2012;12:1988–96. This article suggests the use of carve outs for research and high risk recipients as an approach to changing center risk-averse behavior.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reese PP, Harhay MN, Abt PL, Levine MH, Halpern SD. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27:973–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Transplant program outcomes review system changes. Available on:
  20. 20.
    Transplant program performance outcomes measures. Available on:
  21. 21.
    Axelrod DA, Kalbfleisch JD, Sun RJ, Guidinger MK, Biswas P, Levine GN, Arrington CJ, Merion RM. Innovations in the assessment of transplant center performance: implications for quality improvement. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:959–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Axelrod DA, Guidinger MK, Metzger RA, Weisner RH, Webb RL, Merion RM. Transplant center quality assessment using a continuously updatable, risk-adjusted technique (CUSUM). Am J Transplant. 2006;6:313–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    •• Axelrod DA, Schnitzler MA, Xiao H, Naik AS, Segev DL, Dharnidharka VR, Brennan DC, Lentine KL. The changing financial landscape of renal transplant practice: a national cohort analysis. Am J Transplant (in press). This article highlights the financial disincentives for higher risk transplants due to the current reimbursement structure for kidney transplantation.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schold JD, Reed AI. Developing financial incentives for kidney transplant centers: who is minding the store? Am J Transplant (in press).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    • Howard DH, Sminoff LA, Mcbride V, Lin M. Does quality improvement work?: evaluation of organ donation breakthrough collaborative. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(6 Pt1):2160–73. This article describes the findings from the Organ Donation Collaborative (2002- 2004). Results demonstrated an improvement in pre-period conversion rates by 8% in participating hospitals. The principal findings support the conclusion that participation in the Collaborative led to an increase in donation rates.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Massoud MR, Nielsen GA, Nolan K, Schall MW, Sevin C. A framework for spread: from local improvements to system-wide change. IHI innovation series white paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2006. (Available on
  27. 27.
    • Wilson T, Berwick DM, Cleary PD. What do collaborative improvement projects do? Experience from seven countries. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety. 2003;29(2):85–93. This research study evaluated the perspectives of 15 collaborative leaders to identify the common components of collaboratives to identify variations in how they are deployed. The study identified seven features of collaboratives that leaders felt were critical determinants of effectiveness.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alemi F, et al. Rapid improvement teams. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24:119–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: The Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The Breakthrough Series: IHI’s Collaborative model for achieving breakthrough improvement. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Boston: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2003. (Available on
  31. 31.
    Gustafson D, Cats-Baril WL, Alemi F. Systems to support health policy analysis: theory models, and uses. Chicago: Health Administration Press; 1992.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Institute of Healthcare Improvement—How to Improve: Science of Improvement—Establishing Measures. (Available on
  33. 33.
    •• Gittell JH. High performance healthcare: using the power of relationships to achieve quality, efficiency and resilience. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2009 .This text reference explains the critical concepts of “relational coordination” and the coordination of work through shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect. Text includes case studies illustrating how some healthcare organizations are utilizing the theory to drive improvement and transformational change.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gittell JH. The southwest way: using the power of relationships to achieve high performance. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2003.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gittell JH, et al. Impact of relational coordination on quality of care, post-operative pain and functioning, and length of stay: a nine hospital study of surgical patients. Med Care. 2000;38(8):807–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gittell JH, Weinberg DB, Pfefferle S, Bishop C. Impact of relational coordination on job satisfaction and quality outcomes: a study of nursing homes. Hum Resour Manag J. 2008;19(2):154–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hartgerink JM, et al. The importance of relational coordination for integrated care delivery to older patients in the hospital. J Nurs Manag. 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • David K. Klassen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maureen A. McBride
    • 1
  • Henrisa Tosoc-Haskell
    • 1
  1. 1.United Network for Organ SharingRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations