Association of pretransplant and posttransplant program ratings with candidate mortality after listing

Procurement characteristics of high- and low-performing OPOs as seen in OPTN/SRTR data

To meet new Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) metrics, organ procurement organizations (OPOs) will benefit from understanding performance across decedent and hospital types. We sought to determine the utility of existing data-reporting structures for this purpose by reviewing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipient (SRTR) OPO-Specific Reports (OSRs) from 2013 to 2019. OSRs contain both the Standardized donation rate ratio (SDRR) metric and OPO-reported numbers of "eligible deaths" and donors by hospital. Donor hospitals were characterized using information from Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data, Dartmouth Atlas Hospital Service Area data, and the US Census Bureau. Hospital data reported by OPOs showed 51% higher eligible death donors and 140% higher noneligible death donors per 100 inpatient beds in CMS ranked top versus bottom-quartile OPOs. Top-quartile OPOs by the CMS metric recovered 78% more donors than those in the bottom quartile, but were indistinguishable by SDRR rankings. These differences persisted across hospital sizes, trauma case mix, and area demographics. OPOs with divergent performance were indistinguishable over time by SDRR, but showed changes to hospital-level recovery patterns in SRTR data. Contemporaneous recognition of underperformance across hospitals may provide important and actionable data for regulators and OPOs for focused quality improvement projects.

Don't Throw Your Heart Away: Increased Transparency of Donor Utilization Practices in Transplant Center Report Cards Alters How Center Performance Is Evaluated

BACKGROUND

Publicly available report cards for transplant centers emphasize posttransplant survival and obscure the fact that some centers reject many of the donor organs they are offered (reflecting a conservative donor acceptance strategy), while others accept a broader range of donor offers (reflecting an open donor acceptance strategy).

OBJECTIVE

We assessed how the provision of salient information about donor acceptance practices and waitlist survival rates affected evaluation judgments of hospital report cards given by laypeople and medical trainees.

METHODS

We tested 5 different report card formats across 4 online randomized experiments (n1 = 1,003, n2 = 105, n3 = 123, n4 = 807) in the same hypothetical decision. The primary outcome variable was a binary choice between transplant hospitals (one with an open donor acceptance strategy and the other with a conservative donor acceptance strategy).

RESULTS

Report cards featuring salient information about donor organ utilization rates (transplant outcomes categorized by quality of donor offers accepted) or overall survival rates (outcomes from both waitlist and transplanted patients) led lay participants (studies 1, 3, and 4) and medical trainees (study 2) to evaluate transplant centers with open donor acceptance strategies more favorably than centers with conservative strategies.

LIMITATIONS

Due to the nature of the decision, a hypothetical scenario was necessary for both ethical and practical reasons. Results may not generalize to transplant clinicians or patients faced with the decision of where to join the transplant waitlist.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that performance evaluations for transplant centers may vary significantly based not only on what outcome information is presented in report cards but also how the information is displayed.

Design of a patient-centered decision support tool when selecting an organ transplant center

Patients in the US in need of a life-saving organ transplant must complete a long process of medical decisions, and a first step is to identify a transplant center to complete an evaluation. This study describes a patient-centered process of testing and refinement of a new website (www.transplantcentersearch.org) that was developed to provide data to patients who are seeking a transplant center. Mixed methods, including online surveys and structured usability testing, were conducted to inform changes in an iterative process. Survey data from 684 participants indicated the effects of different icon styles on user decisions. Qualitative feedback from 38 usability testing participants informed improvements to the website interface. The mixed methods approach was feasible and well suited to the need to address multiple development steps of a patient-facing tool. The combined methods allowed for large survey sample sizes and also allowed interaction with a functioning website and in-depth qualitative discussions. The approach is applicable for a broad range of target user groups who are faced with challenging decisions and a need for information tailored to individual users. The survey and usability testing concluded with a functioning website that is positively received by users and meets the objective to support patient decisions when seeking an organ transplant.

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.

Designing a patient-specific search of transplant program performance and outcomes: Feedback from heart transplant candidates and recipients

BACKGROUND

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients provides transplant program-specific information, but it is unclear what patients and stakeholders need to know. Acceptance criteria for the candidate waitlist and donor organs vary by program and region, but there is no means to search for programs by the clinical profiles of recipients and donors.

METHODS

We examined variability in program-specific characteristics that could influence access to transplantation. We also conducted three interviews and three focus groups with heart transplant candidates and recipients. Participants evaluated prototypes of a patient-specific search tool and its capacity to identify programs tailored to specific patient needs. Patient experiences and feedback influenced the development of tools.

RESULTS

The distribution of recipient and donor characteristics influenced access to transplantation, as age and body mass index varied across programs (all with p < .01). Several themes emerged related to decision-making and the perceived usability of the patient-specific search. Perceptions of the prototypes varied, but were positive overall and support making the patient-specific search publicly available. Participants revealed barriers to evaluating transplant programs and suggest that patient-specific search results may optimize the process.

CONCLUSIONS

The patient-specific tool (http://transplantcentersearch.org/) is valued by heart transplant patients and is important to maximizing access to transplant.

Center Variation in Intention-to-Treat Survival Among Patients Listed for Liver Transplant

In the United States, centers performing liver transplant (LT) are primarily evaluated by patient survival within 1 year after LT, but tight clustering of outcomes allows only a narrow window for evaluation of center variation for quality improvement. Alternate measures more relevant to patients and the transplant community are needed. We examined adults listed for LT in the United States, using data submitted to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Intention-to-treat (ITT) survival was defined as survival within 1 year from listing, regardless of transplant. Mixed effects/frailty models were used to assess center variation in ITT survival. Between January 2010 and December 2016, there were 66,428 new listings at 113 centers. Overall, median 1-year ITT survival was 79.8% (interquartile range [IQR], 76.1%-83.4%), whereas 1-year waiting-list (WL) survival was 75.8% (IQR, 71.2%-79.4%), and 1-year post-LT survival was 90.0% (IQR, 87.9%-91.8%). Higher rates of ITT mortality were correlated with increased WL mortality (correlation, r = 0.76), increased post-LT mortality (r = 0.31), lower volume centers (r = -0.34), and lower transplant rate ratio (r = -0.25). Similar patterns were observed in the subgroup of WL candidates listed with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) ≥25: median 1-year ITT survival was 65.2% (IQR, 60.2%-72.6%), whereas 1-year post-LT survival was 87.5% (IQR, 84.0%-90.9%), and 1-year WL survival was 36.6% (IQR, 27.9%-47.0%). In mixed effects modeling, the transplant center was an independent predictor of ITT survival even after adjustment for age, sex, MELD, and sociodemographic variables. Center variation for ITT survival was larger compared with post-LT survival. The measurement of ITT outcome offers a complementary method to assess center performance. This is a first step toward understanding differences in program quality beyond patient and graft survival after LT.

Barriers to High Quality End of Life Care in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

End of life discussions frequently take place in surgical intensive care units, as a significant number of patients die while admitted to the hospital, and surgery is common during the last month of life. Multiple barriers exist to the initiation of these conversations, including: miscommunication between clinicians and surrogates, a paternalistic approach to surgical patients, and perhaps, conflicts of interest as an unwanted consequence of surgical quality reporting. Goal discordant care refers to the care that is provided to a patient that is incapacitated and that is not concordant to his/her wishes. This is a largely unrecognized medical error with devastating consequences, including inappropriate prolongation of life and non-beneficial therapy utilization. Importantly, hospice and palliative care needs to be recognized as quality care in order to deter the incentives that might persuade clinicians from offering these services.

Posttransplant outcome assessments at listing: Long-term outcomes are more important than short-term outcomes

Posttransplant outcome assessments are publicly reported for patient and regulatory use. However, the currently reported 1-year posttransplant graft survival assessments are commonly criticized for not identifying clinically meaningful differences between programs, and not providing information about longer-term posttransplant outcomes. We investigated the association of different posttransplant outcome assessments available to patients at the time of listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival. The posttransplant assessments were from period prevalent, rather than incident, cohorts with more timely 1-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up and 6-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 30-month cohort windows. The association of these assessments at listing with subsequent posttransplant graft survival included candidates listed between July 12, 2011, and December 15, 2015, who subsequently underwent transplant before December 31, 2018. The assessments with 1-year follow-up had uniformly weaker associations than the assessments with 3- and 5-year follow-up. The assessments with 5-year follow-up had the strongest association in kidney and liver transplantation. For kidney, liver, and lung transplantation, assessment windows of at least 18 months typically had the strongest associations with subsequent graft survival. Posttransplant assessments with 5-year follow-up and 18-30-month cohort windows are better than the current posttransplant assessment with 1-year follow-up, particularly at the time of listing.

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.

HEP-Net opinion on the management of ascites and its complications in the setting of decompensated cirrhosis in the resource constrained environment of Pakistan

Approximately one half of patients develop ascites within 10 years of diagnosis of compensated cirrhosis. It is a poor prognostic indicator, with only 50% surviving beyond two years. Mortality worsens significantly to 20% to 50% at one year if the ascites becomes refractory to medical therapy. Pakistan has one of the highest prevalence of viral hepatitis in the world and patients with ascites secondary to liver cirrhosis make a major percentage of both inpatient and outpatient burden. Studies indicate that over 80% of patients admitted with ascites have liver cirrhosis as the cause.

This expert opinion suggests proper assessment of patients with ascites in the presence of underlying cirrhosis. This expert opinion includes appropriate diagnosis and management of uncomplicated ascites, refractory ascites and complicated ascites (including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) ascites, hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) and hyponatremia. The purpose behind this expert opinion is to help consultants, postgraduate trainees, medical officers and primary care physicians optimally manage their patients with cirrhosis and ascites in a resource constrained setting as is often encountered in a developing country like Pakistan.

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.

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.