Examining the critical role of advanced practice providers on a multidisciplinary transplant team

It is well documented that Physician Assistants (PAs) and Nurse Practitioners (NPs), collectively known as Advanced Practice Providers (APPs), have a beneficial role beyond the field of primary care. APPs broad spectrum of knowledge make them particularly well suited for specializing in complex fields such as transplant. Variations in practice across transplant centers lead to questions regarding optimal use of APPs. Using job descriptions from transplant centers currently employing APPs, we sought to examine the critical role of transplant APPs beyond clinical care alone. In this review, we explore not only the general training of APPs and current utilization of APPs in transplant, but also safety, cost effectiveness, and comparison of APPs to other transplant providers. We aimed to highlight the importance of recruitment and retention of transplant specific trained APPs to provide continuity in transplant programs. Additionally, APPs expansion into transplant research, quality improvement, leadership, and management must be considered. We challenge transplant centers utilizing APPs to consider these important aspects when seeking ways to expand and optimize the critical role APPs provide on the transplant team.

Center variation in long-term outcomes for socioeconomically deprived children

Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation is associated with adverse outcomes after pediatric liver transplant. We sought to determine if this relationship varies by transplant center. Using SRTR, we included patients <18 years transplanted 2008-2013 (N = 2804). We matched patient ZIP codes to a deprivation index (range [0,1]; higher values indicate increased socioeconomic deprivation). A center-level patient-mix deprivation index was defined by the distribution of patient-level deprivation. Centers (n = 66) were classified as high or low deprivation if their patient-mix deprivation index was above or below the median across centers. Center quality was classified as low or high graft failure if graft survival rates were better or worse than the overall 10-year graft survival rate. Primary outcome was patient-level graft survival. We used random-effect Cox models to evaluate center-level covariates on graft failure. We modeled center quality using stratified Cox models. In multivariate analysis, each 0.1 increase in the patient-mix deprivation index was associated with increased hazard of graft failure (HR 1.32; 95%CI: 1.05, 1.66). When stratified by center quality, patient-mix deprivation was no longer significant (HR 1.07, 95%CI: 0.89, 1.28). Some transplant centers care for predominantly high deprivation children and maintain excellent outcomes. Revealing and replicating these centers' practice patterns should enable more equitable outcomes.

National Healthcare Delivery Systems Influence Lung Transplant Outcomes for Cystic Fibrosis

Successful lung transplantation (LTx) depends on multiple components of healthcare delivery and performance. Therefore, we conducted an international registry analysis to compare post-LTx outcomes for cystic fibrosis (CF) patients using the UNOS registry in the United States and the National Health Service (NHS) Transplant Registry in the United Kingdom. Patients with CF who underwent lung or heart-lung transplantation in the United States or United Kingdom between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2011 were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression evaluated the effect of healthcare system and insurance on mortality after LTx. 2,307 US LTx recipients and 451 individuals in the United Kingdom were included. 894 (38.8%) US LTx recipients had publically funded Medicare/Medicaid insurance. US private insurance and UK patients had improved median predicted survival compared with US Medicare/Medicaid recipients (p < 0.001). In multivariable Cox regression, US Medicare/Medicaid insurance was associated with worse survival after LTx (US private: HR0.78,0.68-0.90,p = 0.001 and UK: HR0.63,0.41-0.97, p = 0.03). This study in CF patients is the largest comparison of LTx in two unique health systems. Both the United States and United Kingdom have similar early survival outcomes, suggesting important dissemination of best practices internationally. However, the performance of US public insurance is significantly worse and may put patients at risk.