Quality Metrics in Solid Organ Transplantation: A Systematic Review

Patient Perspectives of Center-Specific Reporting in Kidney Failure Care: An Australian Qualitative Study

Introduction

Public reporting of quality of care indicators in healthcare is intended to inform consumer decision-making; however, people may be unaware that such information exists, or it may not capture their priorities. The aim of this study was to understand the views of people with kidney disease about public reporting of dialysis and transplant center outcomes.

Methods

This qualitative study involved 27 patients with lived experience of kidney disease in Australia who participated in 11 online focus groups between August and December 2022. Transcripts were analyzed thematically.

Results

Patients from all Australian states and territories participated, with 22 (81%) having a functioning kidney transplant and 22 (81%) having current or previous experience of dialysis. Five themes were identified as follows: (i) surrendering to the health system, (ii) the complexity of quality, (iii) benefits for patient care and experience, (iv) concerned about risks and unintended consequences, and (v) optimizing the impact of data.

Conclusion

Patients desire choice among kidney services but perceive this as rarely possible in the Australian context. Health professionals are trusted to make decisions about appropriate centers. Public reporting of center outcomes may induce fear and a loss of balanced perspective; however, it was supported by all participants and represents an opportunity for self-advocacy and informed decision-making. Strategies to mitigate potential risks include availability of trusted clinicians and community members to aid in data interpretation, providing context about centers and patients, and framing statistics to promote positivity and hope.

Textbook outcome: A novel metric in heart transplantation outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Assessing heart transplant program quality using short-term survival is insufficient. We define and validate the composite metric textbook outcome and examine its association with overall survival.

METHODS

We identified all primary, isolated adult heart transplants in the United Network for Organ Sharing/Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research files from May 1, 2005, to December 31, 2017. Textbook outcome was defined as length of stay 30 days or less; ejection fraction greater than 50% during 1-year follow-up; functional status 80% to 100% at 1 year; freedom from acute rejection, dialysis, and stroke during the index hospitalization; and freedom from graft failure, dialysis, rejection, retransplantation, and mortality during the first year post-transplant. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Factors independently associated with textbook outcome were used to create a predictive nomogram. Conditional survival at 1 year was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 24,620 patients were identified with 11,169 (45.4%, 95% confidence interval, 44.7-46.0) experiencing textbook outcome. Patients with textbook outcome were more likely free from preoperative mechanical support (odds ratio, 3.504, 95% confidence interval, 2.766 to 4.439, P < .001), free from preoperative dialysis (odds ratio, 2.295, 95% confidence interval, 1.868-2.819, P < .001), to be not hospitalized (odds ratio, 1.264, 95% confidence interval, 1.183-1.349, P < .001), to be nondiabetic (odds ratio, 1.187, 95% confidence interval, 1.113-1.266, P < .001), and to be nonsmokers (odds ratio, 1.160, 95% confidence interval,1.097-1.228, P < .001). Patients with textbook outcome have improved long-term survival relative to patients without textbook outcome who survive at least 1 year (hazard ratio for death, 0.547, 95% confidence interval, 0.504-0.593, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Textbook outcome is an alternative means of examining heart transplant outcomes and is associated with long-term survival. The use of textbook outcome as an adjunctive metric provides a holistic view of patient and center outcomes.

The measure of impact: Proposal of quality metrics for solid organ transplant pharmacy practice

As healthcare continues its transition toward value-based care, it is increasingly important for transplant pharmacists to demonstrate their impact on patient care, health-related outcomes, and healthcare costs. Evidence-based quality and performance metrics are recognized as crucial tools for measuring the value of service. Yet, there is a lack of well-developed and agreed-upon specific metrics for many clinical pharmacy specialties, including solid organ transplantation. To address this need, a panel of transplant pharmacy specialists conducted a detailed literature review and engaged in several panel discussions to identify quality metrics to be considered for assessing the value of clinical pharmacy services provided to solid organ transplant recipients and living donors. The proposed metrics are based on the Donabedian model and are categorized to coincide with the typical phases of transplant care. The measures focus on key issues that arise in transplant recipients related to medication therapy, including adverse drug events, nonadherence, and clinical outcomes attributable to medication therapy management. This article proposes a comprehensive set of measures, any number of which transplant pharmacists can adopt and measure over time to objectively gauge the value of services they are providing to transplant recipients, the transplant center, and the overall healthcare system.

Hospital admissions associated with dehydration in childhood kidney transplantation

BACKGROUND

Paediatric kidney transplant recipients may be at a particular risk of dehydration due to poor kidney concentrating capacity and illness associated with poor fluid intake or losses. In this population, creatinine rise may be more likely with relatively mild dehydration, which may trigger hospital admission. This study describes hospital admissions in the first 12 months after transplantation with diagnosis of graft dysfunction associated with dehydration due to illness or poor fluid intake. We assess risk factors for these admissions.

METHODS

Data was extracted from medical records of patients transplanted in two tertiary children hospitals. Following descriptive analysis, multiple failure regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with admission for acute kidney allograft dysfunction associated with dehydration.

RESULTS

Of 92 children, 42% had at least 1 dehydration admission in the 12 months following transplantation. Almost half of the dehydration admissions were due to poor fluid intake, which accounted for 1/5 of all unplanned hospital admissions. Target fluid intake at first discharge of > 100 ml/kg/day was associated with dehydration admissions of all types (hazard ratio (HR) 2.04 (95% CI 1.13-3.68)). Teen age was associated with poor fluid intake dehydration admissions (HR 4.87 (95% CI 1.19-19.86)), which were more frequent in mid-summer. Use of enteric feeding tube, which correlated with age under 4, associated with contributing illness dehydration admissions (HR 2.18 (95% CI 1.08-4.41)).

CONCLUSIONS

Dehydration admissions in the 12 months following childhood kidney transplantation are common. Highlighted admission risk factors should prompt further study into optimal fluid intake prescription and hydration advice given to children, teenagers, and their carers following kidney transplantation. Use of an enteric feeding tube may not protect patients from admission with dehydration associated with contributing illness. A highger resolution version of the Graphical abstract is available as Supplementary information.

Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery.

SOURCE

We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b).

CONCLUSION

This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein.

STUDY REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

European Society for Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation According to Value-Based Health Care

Liver transplantation is a highly complex, life-saving, treatment for many patients with advanced liver disease. Liver transplantation requires multidisciplinary teams, system-wide adaptations and significant investment, as well as being an expensive treatment. Several metrics have been proposed to monitor processes and outcomes, however these lack patient focus and do not capture all aspects of the process. Most of the reported outcomes do not capture those outcomes that matter to the patients. Adopting the principles of Value-Based Health Care (VBHC), may provide an opportunity to develop those metrics that matter to patients. In this article, we present a Consensus Statement on Outcome Measures in Liver Transplantation following the principles of VBHC, developed by a dedicated panel of experts under the auspices of the European Society of Organ Transplantation (ESOT) Guidelines' Taskforce. The overarching goal is to provide a framework to facilitate the development of outcome measures as an initial step to apply the VMC paradigm to liver transplantation.

Days Alive and Out of the Hospital After Heart Transplantation: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate days alive and out of the hospital (DAOH) as an outcome measure after orthotopic heart transplantation in patients with mechanical circulatory support (MCS) as a bridge to transplant compared to those patients without prior MCS.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study of adult patients who underwent cardiac transplantation between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2020. The primary outcome was DAOH at 365 days (DAOH365) after an orthotopic heart transplant. A Poisson regression model was fitted to detect the association between independent variables and DAOH365.

SETTING

An academic tertiary referral center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 235 heart transplant patients were included-103 MCS as a bridge to transplant patients, and 132 direct orthotopic heart transplants without prior MCS.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The median DAOH365 for the entire cohort was 348 days (IQR 335.0-354.0). There was no difference in DAOH365 between the MCS patients and patients without MCS (347.0 days [IQR 336.0-353.0] v 348.0 days [IQR 334.0-354.0], p = 0.43). Multivariate analysis identified patients who underwent a transplant after the 2018 heart transplant allocation change, pretransplant pulmonary hypertension, and increased total ischemic time as predictors of reduced DAOH365.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patients undergoing orthotopic heart transplantation, there was no significant difference in DAOH365 in patients with prior MCS as a bridge to transplant compared to those without MCS. Incorporating days alive and out of the hospital into the pre-transplant evaluation may improve understanding and conceptualization of the post-transplantation patient experience and aid in shared decision-making with clinicians.

"It's My Life and It's Now or Never"-Transplant Recipients Empowered From a Service-Dominant Logic Perspective

Patient well-being after an organ transplant is a major outcome determinant and survival of the graft is crucial. Before surgery, patients are already informed about how they can influence their prognosis, for example by adhering to treatment advice and remaining active. Overall, effective selfmanagement of health-related issues is a major factor in successful long-term graft survival. As such, organ transplant recipients can be considered as co-producers of their own health status. However, although keeping the graft in good condition is an important factor in the patient's well-being, it is not enough. To have a meaningful life after a solid organ transplant, patients can use their improved health status to once again enjoy time with family and friends, to travel and to return to work -in short to get back on track. Our assertion in this article is twofold. First, healthcare providers should look beyond medical support in enhancing long-term well-being. Second, organ recipients should see themselves as creators of their own well-being. To justify our argument, we use the theoretical perspective of service-dominant logic that states that patients are the true creators of real value-in-use. Or as Bon Jovi sings, "It's my life and it's now or never."

Antimicrobial Stewardship in Immunocompromised Patients: Current State and Future Opportunities

Immunocompromised (IC) patients are high risk for complications due to a high rate of antibiotic exposure. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions targeted to IC patients can be challenging due to limited data in this population and a high risk of severe infection-related outcomes. Here, the authors review immunocompromised antimicrobial stewardship barriers, metrics, and opportunities for antimicrobial use and testing optimization. Last, the authors highlight future steps in the field.

Days alive and out of hospital after liver transplant: comparing a patient-centered outcome between recipients of grafts from donation after circulatory and brain deaths

We retrospectively compared outcomes between recipients of donation after circulatory death (DCD) and donation after brain death (DBD) liver allografts using days alive and out of hospital (DAOH), a composite outcome of mortality, morbidity, and burden of care from patient perspective. The initial length of stay and duration of any subsequent readmission for the first year after liver transplantation were recorded. Donor category and perioperative and intraoperative characteristics pertinent to liver transplantation were included. The primary outcome was DAOH₃₆₅. Secondary outcomes included early allograft dysfunction and hepatic arterial and biliary complications. Although the incidence of both early allograft dysfunction (P < .001) and ischemic cholangiopathy (P < .001) was significantly greater in the recipients of DCD, there were no significant differences in the length of stay and DAOH₃₆₅. The median DAOH₃₆₅ was 355 days for recipients of DBD allografts and 353 days for recipients of DCD allografts (P = .34). Increased transfusion burden, longer cold ischemic time, and non-White recipients were associated with decreased DAOH. There were no significant differences in graft failure (P = .67), retransplantation (P = .67), or 1-year mortality (P = .96) between the 2 groups. DAOH is a practical and attainable measure of outcome after liver transplantation. This metric should be considered for quality measurement and reporting in liver transplantation.

Textbook Outcome as a Quality Metric in Living and Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Quality in kidney transplantation is measured using 1-year patient and graft survival. Because 1-year patient and graft survival exceed 95%, this metric fails to measure a spectrum of quality. Textbook outcomes (TO) are a composite quality metric offering greater depth and resolution. We studied TO after living donor (LD) and deceased donor (DD) kidney transplantation.

STUDY DESIGN

United Network for Organ Sharing data for 69,165 transplant recipients between 2013 and 2017 were analyzed. TO was defined as patient and graft survival of 1 year or greater, 1-year glomerular filtration rate of greater than 40 mL/min, absence of delayed graft function, length of stay of 5 days or less, no readmissions during the first 6 months, and no episodes of rejection during the first year after transplantation. Bivariate analysis identified characteristics associated with TO, and covariates were incorporated into multivariable models. Five-year conditional survival was measured, and center TO rates were corrected for case complexity to allow center-level comparisons.

RESULTS

The national average TO rates were 54.1% and 31.7% for LD and DD transplant recipients. The hazard ratio for death at 5 years for recipients who did not experience TO was 1.92 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.18, p ≤ 0.0001) for LD transplant recipients and 2.08 (95% CI 1.93 to 2.24, p ≤ 0.0001) for DD transplant recipients. Center-level comparisons identify 18% and 24% of centers under-performing in LD and DD transplantation. High rates of TO do not correlate with transplantation center volume.

CONCLUSION

Kidney transplant recipients who experience TO have superior long-term survival. Textbook outcomes add value to the current standards of 1-year patient and graft survival.

Antimicrobial stewardship in solid organ transplant recipients: Current challenges and proposed metrics

BACKGROUND

Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are challenging populations for antimicrobial stewardship interventions due to a variety of reasons, including immunosuppression, consequent risk of opportunistic and donor-derived infections, high rates of infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs), Clostridioides difficile, and need for prolonged antimicrobial prophylaxis. Despite this, data on stewardship interventions and metrics that address the distinct needs of these patients are limited.

METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the current state of antimicrobial stewardship in SOT recipients, existing interventions and metrics in this population, and considerations for implementation of transplant-specific stewardship programs.

RESULTS

Antimicrobial stewardship metrics are evolving even in the general patient population. Data on metrics applicable to the SOT population are even more limited. Standard process, outcomes, and balancing metrics may not always apply to the SOT population. A successful stewardship program for SOT recipients requires reviewing existing data, applying general stewardship principles, and understanding the nuances of SOT patients.

CONCLUSION

As antimicrobial stewardship interventions are being implemented in SOT recipients; new metrics are needed to assess their impact. In conclusion, SOT patients present a challenging but important opportunity for antimicrobial stewards.

ABBREVIATIONS

SOT, antimicrobial stewardship program, MDRO, Clostridioides difficile infection, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infectious Diseases Society of America, prospective audit and feedback, hematopoietic cell transplant, cytomegalovirus, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, surgical site infections, nucleic acid amplification testing, days of therapy, defined daily dose, and length of stay.

Is there value in volume? An assessment of liver transplant practices in the United States since the inception of MELD

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation has increased in volume and provides substantial survival benefit. However, there remains a need for value-based assessment of this costly procedure.

METHODS

Model for end stage liver disease era adult recipients were identified using United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Transplant Analysis file data (n = 75,988) and compared across time periods (period A: February 2002 to January 2007; B: February 2007 to January 2013; C: February 2013 to January 2019). Liver centers were divided into volume tertiles for each period (small, medium, large). Value for the index transplant episode was defined as percentage graft survival ≥1 year divided by mean posttransplant duration of stay.

RESULTS

All centers increased value over time due to ubiquitous improvement in 1-year graft survival. However, large centers demonstrated the most significant value change (large +17% vs small +7.0%, P < .001) due to a -8.5% reduction in large centers duration of stay from period A to C, while small centers duration of stay remained unchanged (-0.1%). Large centers delivered higher value despite more complex care: older recipients (54.8 ± 10.3 vs 53.0 ± 11.4 years P < .001), fewer model for end stage liver disease exceptions (34.0% vs 38.2%, P < .001), higher rates of candidate portal vein thrombosis (10.1% vs 8.5%, P < .001) and prior abdominal surgery (43.4% vs 37.4%, P < .001), and more marginal donor utilization (donor risk index 1.45 ± 0.38 vs 1.36 ± 0.33, P < .001). Mahalanobis metric matching demonstrated that compared with small centers, large centers progressively shortened recipient duration of stay per transplant in each period (A: -0.36 days, P = .437; B: -2.14 days, P < .001; C: -2.49 days, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

There is value in liver transplant volume. Adoption of value-based practices from large centers may allow optimization of health care delivery for this costly procedure.

Acceptability of an mHealth Family Self-management Intervention (myFAMI) for Pediatric Transplantation Families: Qualitative Focus

Background

Around 1800 pediatric transplantations were performed in 2021, which is approximately 5% of the annual rate of solid organ transplantations carried out in the United States. Effective family self-management in the transition from hospital to home-based recovery promotes successful outcomes of transplantation. The use of mHealth to deliver self-management interventions is a strategy that can be used to support family self-management for transplantation recipients and their families.

Objective

The study aims to evaluate the acceptability of an mHealth intervention (myFAMI) that combined use of a smartphone app with triggered nurse communication with family members of pediatric transplantation recipients.

Methods

This is a secondary analysis of qualitative data from family members who received the myFAMI intervention within a larger randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants used the app in the 30-day time frame after discharge and participated in a 30-day postdischarge telephone interview. Content analysis was used to generate themes.

Results

A total of 4 key themes were identified: (1) general acceptance, (2) positive interactions, (3) home management after hospital discharge, and (4) opportunities for improvement.

Conclusions

Acceptability of the intervention was high. Family members rated the smartphone application as easy to use. myFAMI allowed the opportunity for families to feel connected to and engage with the medical team while in their home environment. Family members valued and appreciated ongoing support and education specifically in this first 30 days after their child’s hospital discharge and many felt it contributed positively to the management of their child’s medical needs at home. Family members provided recommendations for future refinement of the app and some suggested that a longer follow-up period would be beneficial. The development and refinement of mHealth care delivery strategies hold potential for improving outcomes for solid organ transplantation patients and their families and as a model to consider in other chronic illness populations.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03533049; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03533049

Textbook Outcome as a Quality Metric in Liver Transplantation

Quality in liver transplantation (LT) is currently measured using 1-y patient and graft survival. Because patient and graft survival rates now exceed 90%, more informative metrics are needed. Textbook outcomes (TOs) describe ideal patient outcomes after surgery. This study critically evaluates TO as a quality metric in LT.

Methods

United Network for Organ Sharing data for 25 887 adult LT recipients were used to define TO as patient and graft survival >1 y, length of stay ≤10 d, 0 readmissions within 6 mo, absence of rejection, and bilirubin <3 mg/dL between months 2 and 12 post-LT. Univariate analysis identified donor and recipient characteristics associated with TO. Covariates were analyzed using purposeful selection to construct a multivariable model, and impactful variables were incorporated as linear predictors into a nomogram. Five-year conditional survival was tested, and center TO rates were corrected for case complexity to allow for center-level comparisons.

Results

The national average TO rate is 37.4% (95% confidence interval, 36.8%-38.0%). The hazard ratio for death at 5 y for patients who do not experience TO is 1.22 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.34; P ≤ 0.0001). Our nomogram predicts TO with a C-statistic of 0.68. Center-level comparisons identify 31% of centers as high performing and 21% of centers as below average. High rates of TO correlate only weakly with center volume.

Conclusions

The composite quality metric of TO after LT incorporates holistic outcome measures and is an important measure of quality in addition to 1-y patient and graft survival.

Surgical complications after living and deceased donor liver transplant: The NSQIP transplant experience

This study used the prospective National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) Transplant pilot database to analyze surgical complications after liver transplantation (LT) in LT recipients from 2017-2019. The primary outcome was surgical complication requiring intervention (Clavien-Dindo grade II or greater) within 90 days of transplant. Of the 1684 deceased donor and 109 living donor LT cases included from 29 centers, 38% of deceased donor liver recipients and 47% of living donor liver recipients experienced a complication. The most common complications included biliary complications (19% DDLT; 31% LDLT), hemorrhage requiring reoperation (14% DDLT; 9% LDLT) and vascular complications (6% DDLT; 9% LDLT). Management of biliary leaks (35.3% ERCP, 38.0% percutaneous drainage, 26.3% reoperation) and vascular complications (36.2% angioplasty/stenting, 31.2% medication, 29.8% reoperation) was variable. Biliary (aHR 5.14, 95% CI 2.69-9.8, p<0.001), hemorrhage (aHR 2.54, 95% CI 1.13-5.7, p = 0.024) and vascular (aHR 2.88, 95% CI 0.85-9.7, p = 0.089) complication status at 30-days post-transplant were associated with lower 1-year patient survival. We conclude that biliary, hemorrhagic and vascular complications continue to be significant sources of morbidity and mortality for LT recipients. Understanding the different risk factors for complications between deceased and living donor liver recipients and standardizing complication management represent avenues for continued improvement. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Entrustable professional activities for pharmacy students: A primer for solid organ transplant preceptors

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles , AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

The role of a solid organ transplant pharmacist is multifaceted and translates to diverse experiential and elective learning experiences that can be provided to pharmacy learners. Here we provide a guide to integrating pharmacy students into patient care and other pharmacist activities in solid organ transplantation.

SUMMARY

Thoughtful incorporation of learners into clinical practice and clinical research creates a positive learning environment for pharmacy students that can foster the development of core skills necessary for students to become "practice-ready" and "team-ready" pharmacy graduates and can equip them with valuable skills to incorporate into the specialty practice areas and careers they pursue. To help develop these educational experiences, attention to the list of core entrustable professional activities (EPAs) established by the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy can help create a rich environment of learning with carefully cultivated tasks. Furthermore, learners can serve as transplant pharmacist extenders to assist in overall patient care and multidisciplinary involvement on the transplant team. This article serves as a "how-to" guide for applying the EPA framework to integrating pharmacy students in patient care and other pharmacist activities in solid organ transplantation and other specialty practice areas.

CONCLUSION

As pharmacy preceptors design and operationalize their teaching to incorporate EPAs, they can benefit from recommendations tailored to specialty practice areas such as solid organ transplantation. Students may start and finish these experiences at different EPA levels, but continuance of training will allow them to achieve the final EPA level across the 6 EPA domains.

An Environmental Scan and Evaluation of Quality Indicators Across Canadian Kidney Transplant Centers

Background:

Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for an individual requiring kidney replacement therapy, resulting in improved survival and quality of life while costing the health care system less than maintenance dialysis. Achieving and maintaining a kidney transplant requires extensive coordination of several different health care services. To improve the quality of kidney transplant care, quality metrics or indicators that encompass all aspects of the individual’s journey to transplant should be measured in a standardized fashion.

Objective:

To identify, categorize, and evaluate strengths and weaknesses of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used across Canada.

Design:

An environmental scan of quality indicators being used by kidney organizations and programs.

Setting:

A 16-member volunteer pan-Canadian panel with expertise in nephrology, transplant, and quality improvement.

Sample:

Transplant programs, as well as provincial transplant and kidney agencies across Canada.

Methods:

Indicators were first categorized based on the period of transplant care and then using the Institute of Medicine and Donabedian frameworks. A 4-member subcommittee rated each indicator using a modified version of the Delphi consensus technique based on the American College of Physician/Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality criteria. Consensus ratings were subsequently shared with the entire 16-member panel for additional comments.

Results:

We identified 46 measures related to transplant care across 7 Canadian provinces (9 referral and evaluation, 9 waitlist activity and outcomes, 6 hospitalization for transplant surgery, 12 posttransplant care, 6 organ utilization, 4 living donor). We rated 24 indicators (52%) as necessary to distinguish high-quality from low-quality care, most of which measured effective (n = 10) or efficient (n = 6) care. Only 7 (15%) of 46 indicators evaluated person-centered or equitable care. Fourteen common indicators were measured by 5 of 7 provinces, 10 of which were deemed “necessary,” measuring safe (n = 2), effective (n = 5), efficient (n = 2), and equitable (n = 1) care.

Limitations:

The panel lacked patient and allied health representation.

Conclusions:

There are a large number of kidney transplant quality indicators currently being used in Canada, some of which are common across provinces and focus primarily on measuring effective care. Person-centered and equitable care indicators were lacking, and only half of these indicators were deemed “necessary” for quality improvement. Our results should complement ongoing work to achieve national consensus on the standardization of quality indicators in kidney transplantation.

Central importance of emotional and quality-of-life outcomes in the public's perception of face transplantation

BACKGROUND

Face transplantation is a surgical innovation to manage people with severely interrupted facial function and form. How the public perceive face transplantation and its potential implications for the recipient, donor, and society is unclear. The aim of this study was to understand the public perception of face transplantation, including when it is appropriate, what information is required to feel adequately informed, and which factors influence a person's willingness to donate their face.

METHODS

This was a nationwide survey of participants representative of the GB public. A quantitative analysis was performed. Free-text qualitative responses were coded with thematic content analysis and a narrative analysis was constructed.

RESULTS

The survey included 2122 participants. Face transplantation was considered worth the potential risks if it improved an individual's quality of life, gave them a 'normal life', and/or increased their confidence and social interaction. Respondents were worried about the impact face transplantation might have on donor families, especially recipient families adapting to the identity of the donor. Respondents most concerned about the concept of face transplantation were aged at least 55 years (χ2(4) = 38.9, P < 0.001), women (χ2(1) = 19.8, P < 0.001), and Indian/Asian (χ2(4) = 11.9, P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The public perceive emotional and psychological outcomes as equally as important as, or more important than, surgical outcomes when determining the appropriateness of face transplantation. Future research should focus on measuring and describing emotional and psychological outcomes after face transplantation.

A Pre-TACE Radiomics Model to Predict HCC Progression and Recurrence in Liver Transplantation. A Pilot Study on a Novel Biomarker

BACKGROUND

Despite Trans-Arterial Chemo Embolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a significant number of patients will develop progression on the liver transplant (LT) waiting list or disease recurrence post-LT. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of a pre-TACE radiomic model, an imaging-based tool to predict these adverse outcomes.

METHODS

We analyzed the pre-TACE computed tomography images of patients waiting for a LT. The primary endpoint was a combined event that included waitlist dropout for tumor progression or tumor recurrence post-LT. The radiomic features were extracted from the largest HCC volume from the arterial and portal venous phase. A third set of features was created, combining the features from these 2 contrast phases. We applied a LASSO feature selection method and a support vector machine classifier. Three prognostic models were built using each feature set. The models' performance was compared using 5-fold cross-validated Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (AUC).

RESULTS

88 patients were included, of whom 33 experienced the combined event (37.5%). The median time to dropout was 5.6 months (IQR:3.6-9.3), and the median time for post-LT recurrence was 19.2 months (IQR:6.1-34.0). Twenty-four patients (27.3%) dropped out, and 64 (72.7%) patients were transplanted. Of these, 14 (21.9%) had recurrence post-LT. Model performance yielded a mean AUC of 0.70(±0.07), 0.87(±0.06) and 0.81(±0.06) for the arterial, venous and the combined models, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A pre-TACE radiomics model for HCC patients undergoing LT may be a useful tool for outcome prediction. Further external model validation with a larger sample size is required.

Kidney transplant program waitlisting rate as a metric to assess transplant access

Kidney transplant program performance in the United States is commonly measured by posttransplant outcomes. Inclusion of pretransplant measures could provide a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and necessary information for patient decision-making. In this study, we propose a new metric, the waitlisting rate, defined as the ratio of patients who are waitlisted in a center relative to the person-years referred for evaluation to a program. Furthermore, we standardize the waitlisting rate relative to the state average in Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The new metric was used as a proof-of-concept to assess transplant-program access compared to the existing transplant rate metric. The study cohorts were defined by linking 2017 United States Renal Data System (USRDS) data with transplant-program referral data from the Southeastern United States between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2016. Waitlisting rate varied across the 9 Southeastern transplant programs, ranging from 10 to 22 events per 100 patient-years, whereas the program-specific waitlisting rate ratio ranged between 0.76 and 1.33. Program-specific waitlisting rate ratio was uncorrelated with the transplant rate ratio (r = -.15, 95% CI, -0.83 to 0.57). Findings warrant collection of national data on early transplant steps, such as referral, for a more comprehensive assessment of transplant program performance and pretransplant access.

A RAND-Modified Delphi on Key Indicators to Measure the Efficiency of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations

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.

Comparing Pretransplant and Posttransplant Outcomes When Choosing a Transplant Center: Focus Groups and a Randomized Survey

BACKGROUND

In response to calls for an increased focus on pretransplant outcomes and other patient-centered metrics in public reports of center outcomes, a mixed methods study evaluated how the content and presentation style of new information influences decision-making. The mixed methods design utilized qualitative and quantitative phases where the strengths of one method help address limitations of the other, and multiple methods facilitate comparing results.

METHODS

First, a series of organ-specific focus groups of kidney, liver, heart, and lung patients helped to develop and refine potential displays of center outcomes and understand patient perceptions. A subsequent randomized survey included adult internet users who viewed a single, randomly-selected variation of 6 potential online information displays. Multinomial regression evaluated the effects of graphical presentations of information on decision-making.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-seven candidates and recipients joined 23 focus groups. Survey responses were analyzed from 975 adults. Qualitative feedback identified patient perceptions of uncertainty in outcome metrics, in particular pretransplant metrics, and suggested a need for clear guidance to interpret the most important metric for organ-specific patient mortality. In the randomized survey, only respondents who viewed a note indicating that transplant rate had the largest impact on survival chose the hospital with the best transplant rate over the hospital with the best posttransplant outcomes (marginal relative risk and 95% confidence interval, 1.161.501.95).

CONCLUSIONS

The presentation of public reports influenced decision-making behavior. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research helped to guide and enhance understanding of the impacts of proposed changes in reported metrics.

Tool to Aid Patients in Selecting a Liver Transplant Center

Variations in candidate and donor acceptance criteria may influence access and mortality for liver transplantation. We sought to understand how recipient and donor characteristics vary across centers and how patients interpret this information, and we used these data to develop a tool to provide tailored information to candidates seeking a center (www.transplantcentersearch.org). We analyzed liver recipient data from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to determine how recipient and donor characteristics (eg, age, Medicaid use, and human immunodeficiency virus status) varied across programs. Data included recipients and donors at each US program between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017. The variation in characteristics was plotted with centers stratified by total transplant volume and by volume of each characteristic. A subset of characteristics was plotted to show variation over 3 years. We created mockups of potential reports displaying recipient characteristics alongside pretransplant and posttransplant outcomes and solicited feedback at patient and family interviews and focus groups, which included 39 individuals: 10 pilot interviews with candidates seeking liver transplant at the University of Minnesota-Fairview (UMNF) and 5 focus groups with 13 UMNF candidates, 6 UMNF family members, and 10 national recipients. Transcripts were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged: (1) Candidates experience gaps in existing education about center options; (2) patients requested information about how selection criteria might impact access to transplant; and (3) information tailored to a candidate's medical characteristics can inform decisions. Characteristics shown on mockups varied across centers (P < 0.01). Variation was widespread for small and large centers. In conclusion, variation exists in recipient and donor characteristics across centers. Liver transplant patients provide positive feedback upon viewing patient-specific search tools.

Quality Measures in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: Identifying Metrics to Improve Care

BACKGROUND

Specific measures tailored to the properties of individual procedures will ensure the appropriate evaluation of quality. Because postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) is becoming increasingly common, a review of the literature is timely to identify potential breast reconstruction-specific measures that can be applied by institutions and national healthcare organizations to improve quality.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for studies examining the quality of care for patients undergoing PMBR. Data extracted from the articles include basic study characteristics, the number of quality metrics, type of quality metric (defined by Donabedian model), and the domain of quality (defined by the National Academy of Medicine).

RESULTS

A total of 2,158 articles were identified in the initial search, and 440 studies were included for data extraction. The most common type of quality measure was outcome measures (91%), and the least common measure was structure measures (1%). The most common metrics were operative time (41%), hospital type (28%), and aspects of the patient-provider interactions (20%). Additionally, we found that timeliness and equity were least common among the 6 National Academy of Medicine domains.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified metrics utilized in the PMBR, some of which can be further investigated through high-level evidence studies and incorporated into policy. Because many factors influence surgical outcomes and breast reconstruction is driven by patient preferences, an inclusion of structure, process, and outcome metrics will help improve care for this patient population. Moreover, nonpunitive initiatives, specifically quality collaboratives, may provide an avenue to improve care quality without compromising patient safety.

Incidence of and Risk Factors for Multiple Readmissions after Kidney Transplantation

Unplanned readmission is often used as a surgical quality metric. A subset of kidney transplant recipients undergos multiple readmissions (MRs), although the incidence and risk factors are not well described. The aim of this study was to evaluate risk factors for MR after deceased donor kidney transplantation. All patients undergoing deceased donor kidney transplantation at a single center over a three-year period were analyzed via retrospective chart review for factors associated with MR. P values <0.05 were considered significant. Of 141 patients, the 30-day readmission rate was 26.2 per cent. MR occurred in 43 (30.5%) patients. Age, race, gender, initial organ function, and dialysis vintage were not associated with MR. Diabetic recipients, those who received basiliximab induction, those with acute rejection, and those with unplanned reoperations were at increased risk for MR. Infection was the most common reason for initial readmission in patients with MR (23.3%). One-year patient survival and death-censored graft survival were reduced for patients with MR. MRs are required for 30 per cent of kidney transplant recipients, primarily because of infection and immunologic causes. Recipients with diabetes and those who have acute rejection are at greatest risk.

How patients choose kidney transplant centers: A qualitative study of patient experiences

Little is known about how patients make the critical decision of choosing a transplant center. In the United States, acceptance criteria, waiting times, and mortality vary significantly by geography and center. We sought to understand patients' experiences and perspectives when selecting transplant centers. We included 82 kidney transplant patients in 20 semi-structured interviews, nine focus groups with local candidates, and three focus groups with national recipients. Sites included two local transplant centers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and national recipients from across the United States. Transcripts were analyzed by two researchers using a thematic analysis. Several themes emerged related to priorities and barriers when choosing a center. Patients were often unfamiliar with options, even with multiple local centers. Patients described being referred to a specific center by a trusted provider. Patients prioritized perceived reputation, comfort, and convenience. Insurance coverage was both a source of information and a barrier to options. Patients underestimated differences across centers and the effects on being waitlisted and receiving a transplant. Barriers in decision making included an overwhelming scope of information and difficulty locating information relevant to patients with unique medical needs. Informed decisions could be improved by the dissemination of understandable information better tailored to individual patient needs.

Perspectives on Quality of Care in Kidney Transplantation: A Semistructured Interview Study

BACKGROUND

There is currently no agreement as to what constitutes quality transplant care, and there is a lack of consistency in the approach to assessing transplantation quality. We aimed to ascertain the views of patients, clinicians, and program administrators about quality care for kidney transplant patients.

METHODS

Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with 20 patients, 17 physicians, and 11 program administrators. Transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 8 themes: access to treatment (standardized transplant referral, lengthy transplant evaluation process, lengthy living donor evaluation); accessibility of services (alternative access options, flexible appointment availability, appropriate amount of follow-up, barriers for accessing care); program resources (comprehensive multidisciplinary care, knowledgeable staff, peer support groups, educational resources, patient navigators/ advocates); communication of information (taking time to answer questions, clear communication about treatment, communication tailored to patients, health promotion and illness prevention); attitude of care providers (positive and supportive attitude, patient centered care); health outcomes (freedom from dialysis, Long-term health, short-term health, fear of infections); patient satisfaction (returning to normal life, patient satisfaction with care); and safety (reducing infection risk, quick response to complications, patient health status on the waitlist).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need to move beyond basic clinical outcomes and focus on increasing ease of access, the patient-provider relationship, and outcomes that are most important to the patients.