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

Giving a voice to patient and caregiver perspectives on equity in transplantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While prior reviews have assessed barriers to transplantation experienced by patients and their families, they have not summarized how these stakeholders feel about whether and how those barriers impact equity in transplantation. We seek to comprehensively present the literature of patients and family perspectives on disparities in transplant access and potential solutions.

RECENT FINDINGS

Some patients and their families report experiences of discrimination, while others from traditionally marginalized groups feel the system is equitable and do not perceive any different treatment as a result of their race/ethnicity, sex, age, religion, or geography. This summary suggests that not all of the disparities observed in transplant access are attributable to systemic or unconscious bias and may be partially alleviated through enhanced education and communication.

SUMMARY

Lack of understanding and transparency lead to mistrust of organ transplantation, further exacerbating existing disparities. Patient and family engagement is paramount for ensuring the trust of the public who are the source of organs and those who directly benefit from this field. Partnerships between patient advocacy groups, professional societies, and policymakers have the potential to increase transparency while ensuring that the patient voice is represented in any system-level change and assessment.

Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate a New Tool to Support Patient Decision-making on Transplant Centers

Patients are not always aware of listing criteria and offer acceptance across transplant programs. Factors such as age and body mass index can impact access to transplants as centers have different candidate criteria. Therefore, we created a transplant center search tool (transplantcentersearch.org) (TCST) to help patients find comparative information on transplant programs. We conducted a cross-over randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess whether the TCST improved comprehension compared to the existing Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients website among adults seeking kidney transplants at two centers. To assess comprehension participants were asked to use the TCST and the SRTR website to identify which transplant program within a prespecified area had the most recipients over 70 years of age; and which programs had the most recipients with BMI >40. Participants were asked to provide qualitative feedback on using both websites. Sixty-eight candidates participated in the RCT. Participants were more likely to identify the correct program when using the TCST compared to the existing SRTR website (OR 8.13, 95% CI 1.87-35.33). Participants stated they preferred the TCST over the SRTR website (52.9% vs. 25.0%, respectively, p = 0.009). With increased comprehension, patients would be better equipped to identify programs that transplant patients like them. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03610555.

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.

"You don't know what you don't know": A qualitative study of informational needs of patients, family members, and living donors to inform transplant system metrics

INTRODUCTION

Informational needs and potential use of transplant metrics, especially among patients, remain understudied and a critical component of the transplant community's commitment to patient-centered care. We sought to understand the perspectives and needs of patients, family members/caregivers, living donors, and deceased donor family members.

METHODS

We examined decision-making experiences and perspectives on the needs of these stakeholder groups for data about the national transplant system among 58 participants of 14 focus groups and 6 interviews.

RESULTS

Three major themes emerged: 1) informational priorities and unmet needs (transplantation system processes, long-term outcomes data, prelisting data, patient-centered outcomes, and ability to compare centers and regions); 2) challenges obtaining relevant and trustworthy information (patient burden and effort, challenges with medical jargon, and difficulty finding trustworthy information); and 3) burden of facing the unknown (stress and anxiety leading to difficulty processing information, challenges facing the transplant journey when you "don't know what you don't know").

CONCLUSION

Patient, family member, and living donor participation in shared decision-making has been limited by inadequate access to patient-centered information. New metrics and patient-facing data presentations should address these content gaps using best practices to improve understanding and support shared decision-making.

Impact of Public Reporting of Center-Specific Survival Analysis Scores on Patient Volumes at Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Centers

BACKGROUND

The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) reports the outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) at United States transplant centers (TC) annually through its Center-Specific Survival Analysis (CSA). The CSA compares the actual 1-year overall survival (OS) and predicted 1-year OS rate after alloHCT at each TC, which is then reported as 0 (OS as expected), -1 (OS worse than expected), or +1 (OS better than expected).

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of public reporting of TC performance on their alloHCT patient volumes.

STUDY DESIGN

Ninety-one TCs that serve adult or combined adult and pediatric populations and had CSA scores reported for 2012-2018 were included. We analyzed prior-calendar year TC volume, prior-calendar year CSA score, whether the CSA score had changed in the prior year from two years earlier, calendar year, TC type (adult only vs. combined adult and pediatric), and years of alloHCT experience for their impact on patient volumes.

RESULTS

A CSA score of -1, as compared with 0 or +1, was associated with an 8%-9% reduction in the mean TC volume (P < 0.001) in the subsequent year, adjusting for the prior year center volume. Additionally, being a TC neighboring an index TC with a -1 CSA score, was associated with a 3.5% increase in mean TC volume (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Our data show that public reporting of CSA scores is associated with changes in alloHCT volumes at TCs. Additional investigation into the causes of this shift in patient volume and the impact on outcomes is ongoing.

A Population Health Approach to Transplant Access: Challenging the Status Quo

Transplant referral and evaluation are critical steps to waitlisting yet remain an elusive part of the transplant process. Despite calls for more data collection on pre-waitlisting steps, there are currently no national surveillance data to aid in understanding the causes and potential solutions for the extreme variation in access to transplantation. As population health scientists, epidemiologists, clinicians, and ethicists we submit that the transplant community has an obligation to better understand disparities in transplant access as a first necessary step to effectively mitigating these inequities. Our position is grounded in a population health approach, consistent with several new overarching national policy and quality initiatives. The purpose of this Perspective is to (1) provide an overview of how a population health approach should inform current multisystem policies impacting kidney transplantation and demonstrate how these efforts could be enhanced with national data collection on pre-waitlisting steps; (2) demonstrate the feasibility and concrete next steps for pre-waitlisting data collection; and (3) identify potential opportunities to use these data to implement effective population-level interventions, policies, and quality measures to improve equity in access to kidney transplantation.

Listing at non-local transplant centers is associated with increased access to deceased donor kidney transplantation

The ability of kidney transplant candidates to travel outside of their usual place of care varies by sociodemographic factors, potentially exacerbating disparities in access. We used Transplant Referral Regions (TRRs) to overcome previous methodological barriers of using geographic distance to assess the characteristics and outcomes of patients listed for kidney transplant at centers in neighboring TRR or beyond neighboring TRRs. Among listed kidney transplant candidates, 20.9% traveled to a neighbor and 5.6% beyond a neighbor. A higher proportion of travelers were White, had some college education, and lived in ZIP codes with lower poverty. Travel to a neighbor was associated with a 7% increase in likelihood of deceased donor transplant (cHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.09) and traveling beyond a neighbor with a 19% increase (cHR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.24). Travelers had similar rates of living donor transplant and waitlist mortality as patients who did not travel; those who traveled beyond a neighbor had slightly lower posttransplant mortality (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.99). In conclusion, the ability to travel outside of the recipient's assigned TRR increases access to transplantation and improves long-term survival.

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) held a consensus conference in 2012 that examined methods used by SRTR for constructing performance metrics and made recommendations on how to improve program-specific reports. That consensus conference provided 25 recommendations categorized as follows: statistical methods, risk adjustment, and outcomes and data. During the subsequent decade, SRTR has implemented most of these recommendations; these are described in this article along with plans for another consensus conference in 2022. With the present article, SRTR aims to create transparency in the field of transplant metrics and guide discussion in the planning of the next consensus conference in 2022. The new conference will revisit the previous topics and have a broader focus to improve the metrics and information that SRTR provides. Readers can provide feedback on topics to be discussed at the next consensus conference as early as possible, by emailing srtr@srtr.org with the subject line "Task 5 Public Comment." This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Point-of-Care Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Precision Dosing of Immunosuppressive Drugs

BACKGROUND

Immunosuppressive drugs (ISD) are an essential tool in the treatment of transplant rejection and immune-mediated diseases. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for determination of ISD concentrations in biological samples is an important instrument for dose personalization for improving efficacy while reducing side effects. While currently ISD concentration measurements are performed at specialized, centralized facilities, making the process complex and laborious for the patient, various innovative technical solutions have recently been proposed for bringing TDM to the point-of-care (POC).

CONTENT

In this review, we evaluate current ISD-TDM and its value, limitations, and proposed implementations. Then, we discuss the potential of POC-TDM in the era of personalized medicine, and provide an updated review on the unmet needs and available technological solutions for the development of POC-TDM devices for ISD monitoring. Finally, we provide concrete suggestions for the generation of a meaningful and more patient-centric process for ISD monitoring.

SUMMARY

POC-based ISD monitoring may improve clinical care by reducing turnaround time, by enabling more frequent measurements in order to obtain meaningful pharmacokinetic data (i.e., area under the curve) faster reaction in case of problems and by increasing patient convenience and compliance. The analysis of the ISD-TDM field prompts the evolution of POC testing toward the development of fully integrated platforms able to support clinical decision-making. We identify 4 major areas requiring careful combined implementation: patient usability, data meaningfulness, clinicians' acceptance, and cost-effectiveness.

Providers' View on the First Kidney Transplantation Center in Ethiopia: Experience From Past to Present

Introduction:

Transplantation is the optimal management for patients with end-stage renal disease. In Ethiopia, the first national kidney transplantation center was opened at St. Paul’s Hospital Millennium Medical College in September 2015. The aim of this study was to explore providers’ views and experiences of the past to present at this center.

Methods:

A qualitative study design was employed from 1^st November to 15^th December, 2019. To ensure that appropriate informants would provide rich study data, 8 health care providers and top management members were purposefully chosen for in-depth interviews. A maximum variation sampling method was considered to include a representative sample of informants. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcribed data was coded and analyzed using Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) Minor Lite software and Microsoft-Excel.

Result:

The participants (5 males and 3 females) approached were from different departments of the renal transplant center, and the main hospital. Eight main themes and 18 sub-themes were generated initially from all interviews totaling to 109 index codes. Further evaluation and recoding retained 5 main themes, and 14 sub-themes. The main themes are; challenges experienced during and after launching the center, commitment, sympathy and satisfaction, outcomes of renal transplant, actions to improve the quality of service, and how the transplant center should operate. Providers claim that they discharge their responsibilities through proper commitment and compassion, paying no attention to incentive packages. They also explained that renal transplantation would have all the outcomes related to economic, humanistic and clinical facets.

Conclusion and Recommendation:

A multitude of challenges were faced during and after the establishment of the first renal transplant center in Ethiopia. Providers discharge their responsibility through a proper compassion for patients. Concerned stakeholders should actively collaborate to improve the quality of renal transplant services in the center.

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.

Does the Global Outbreak of COVID-19 or Other Viral Diseases Threaten the Stem Cell Reservoir Inside the Body?

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly influenced public health and contributed to global economic divergences of unprecedented dimensions. Due to the high prevalence and mortality rates, it is then expected that the consequence and public health challenges will last for long periods. The rapid global spread of COVID-19 and lack of enough data regarding the virus pathogenicity multiplies the complexity and forced governments to react quickly against this pandemic. Stem cells represent a small fraction of cells located in different tissues. These cells play a critical role in the regeneration and restoration of injured sites. Because of their specific niche and a limited number of stem cells, the key question is whether there are different anti-viral mechanisms against viral infection notably COVID-19. Here, we aimed to highlight the intrinsic antiviral resistance in different stem cells against viral infection. These data could help us to understand the possible viral infections in different stem cells and the activation of specific molecular mechanisms upon viral entrance.

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.

Major Variation across Local Transplant Centers in Probability of Kidney Transplant for Wait-Listed Patients

BACKGROUND

Geographic disparities in access to deceased donor kidney transplantation persist in the United States under the Kidney Allocation System (KAS) introduced in 2014, and the effect of transplant center practices on the probability of transplantation for wait-listed patients remains unclear.

METHODS

To compare probability of transplantation across centers nationally and within donation service areas (DSAs), we conducted a registry study that included all United States incident adult kidney transplant candidates wait listed in 2011 and 2015 (pre-KAS and post-KAS cohorts comprising 32,745 and 34,728 individuals, respectively). For each center, we calculated the probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation within 3 years of wait listing using competing risk regression, with living donor transplantation, death, and waiting list removal as competing events. We examined associations between center-level and DSA-level characteristics and the adjusted probability of transplant.

RESULTS

Candidates received deceased donor kidney transplants within 3 years of wait listing more frequently post-KAS (22%) than pre-KAS (19%). Nationally, the probability of transplant varied 16-fold between centers, ranging from 4.0% to 64.2% in the post-KAS era. Within DSAs, we observed a median 2.3-fold variation between centers, with up to ten-fold and 57.4 percentage point differences. Probability of transplantation was correlated in the post-KAS cohort with center willingness to accept hard-to-place kidneys (r=0.55, P<0.001) and local organ supply (r=0.44, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Large differences in the adjusted probability of deceased donor kidney transplantation persist under KAS, even between centers working with the same local organ supply. Probability of transplantation is significantly associated with organ offer acceptance patterns at transplant centers, underscoring the need for greater understanding of how centers make decisions about organs offered to wait-listed patients and how they relate to disparities in access to transplantation.

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.

Internet Published Policies Regarding Liver Transplant Eligibility and Substance Use in United States Transplant Centers

Liver transplant centers in the United States retain great autonomy in determining eligibility criteria for a liver transplant. This study aims to define the availability and content of liver transplant centers' publicly available Internet policies regarding eligibility criteria for liver transplant. Three trained undergraduate students performed a structured pilot‐tested assessment of official websites of the United Network for Organ Sharing‐registered liver transplant centers. All 141 liver transplant centers had an accessible website. Some account of eligibility criteria was provided by 53% of centers, while 32% of centers discussed substance use. Only 17% discussed their policy regarding alcohol use in candidates with underlying alcohol use disorder, and only 2% stipulated that 6 months of abstinence was required. While exclusion based on substance use or age was discussed infrequently, insurance coverage requirements, the need for social support, and the need for adherence to medical care were mentioned in 21%, 37%, and 23% of centers, respectively. Conclusion: In 2018, half of liver transplant centers provided some information on their official websites regarding eligibility criteria for liver transplant. Detailed information regarding substance use disorders and social health requirements was rare. The Internet is infrequently used by liver transplant centers as a means to publicly share information regarding selection criteria.

Development of a Patient-specific Search of Transplant Program Outcomes and Characteristics: Feedback From Kidney Transplant Patients

Background.

Patients face obstacles in finding a transplant program that meets their healthcare needs. Acceptance criteria and waiting times vary by region and program. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients provides program-specific information, but it is unclear what patients and referring physicians need to know.

Methods.

We examined variability in program-specific characteristics that could influence access to transplantation. We also conducted 20 interviews and 16 focus groups with transplant candidates, recipients, and their family members. Participants were shown prototypes of a patient-specific search tool and evaluated its capacity to identify programs tailored to the needs of individual patients.

Results.

The distribution of recipient and donor characteristics that may impact access to transplantation, such as recipients on Medicaid, varied across programs (all with P < 0.01). Several themes emerged related to impressions of access to transplantation and the usability of patient-specific search functions. Perceptions of the prototypes and results varied, but were positive overall and support providing an individualized search of program level data. Participants revealed significant barriers to identifying and evaluating transplant programs and suggest that patient-specific search results reduce the anxiety associated with selecting a program.

Conclusions.

Providing patient-specific tools is valued by patients and important to maximizing access to transplant.

Lung transplant waitlist outcomes in the United States and patient travel distance

There is a broad range of patient travel distances to reach a lung transplant hospital in the United States. Whether patient travel distance is associated with waitlist outcomes is unknown. We present a cohort study of patients listed between January 1, 2006 and May 31, 2017 using the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. Travel distance was measured from the patient's permanent zip code to the transplant hospital using shared access signature URL access to Google Maps, and assessed using multivariable competing risk regression models. There were 22 958 patients who met inclusion criteria. Median travel distance was 69.7 miles. Among patients who traveled > 60 miles, 41.2% bypassed a closer hospital and sought listing at a more distant hospital. In the adjusted models, when compared to patients who traveled ≤60 miles, patients who traveled >360 miles had a 27% lower subhazard ratio (SHR) for waitlist removal (SHR 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.60, 0.89, P = .002), 16% lower subhazard for waitlist death (SHR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73-0.95, P = .07), and 13% increased likelihood for transplant (SHR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.20, P < .001). Many patients bypassed the nearest transplant hospital, and longer patient travel distance was associated with favorable waitlist outcomes.