What is visible is fixable: Visual dashboards for multi-domain assessment of organ procurement organization performance.

With stakeholder focus on the United States organ procurement system, there is a need for tools that permit comparative assessment of organ procurement providers. We developed a public-facing dashboard for organ procurement organizations (OPOs), using data from multiple sources, to create an online, readily accessible visualization of OPO practice conditions and performance for the period 2010-2020. With this tool, OPOs can be compared on the CMS metric of donors procured per 100 donation-consistent deaths, as well as donation after circulatory death procurement, procurement of older and minority patient populations, procurement in smaller hospitals, and procurement of patients without a significant drug history. Patterns of higher performance were identified, and 74% of differences in overall donor procurement rates could be explained using model variables. Procurement differences were affected to a greater and more reproducible degree by OPO performance among Black and non-White patient populations, as well as in smaller hospitals, than by donation service area characteristics. Dashboards such as ours support OPOs and stakeholders in quality improvement actions, through leveraging benchmarked performance data among organ procurement clinical providers.

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.

Public discourse and policy change: Absence of harm from increased oversight and transparency in OPO performance.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced changes to the Final Rule for organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in November 2020, after a 23-month period of public debate. One concern among transplant stakeholders was that public focus on OPO underperformance would harm deceased donation. Using CDC-WONDER data, we studied whether donation performance dropped during the era of public debate about OPO reform (December 2018-February 2020). Overall OPO performance as measured relative to cause, age, and location-consistent deaths rose by 12.3% in 2019, compared to a median annual change of 2.5% 2009-2019. Organ recoveries exceeded seasonally adjusted forecasts by 4.2% in the first half of 2019, by 8.1% following the Executive Order issuing a mandate for OPO metric reform, and by 14.1% between the Notice of Public Rule Making and the onset of COVID-19-related systemic disruptions. We describe changes in donor phenotype in the period of increased performance; improvement was greatest for older and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors, and among decedents who did not have a drug-related mechanism of death. In summary, performance during an era of intense public debate and proposed regulatory changes yielded 692 additional donors over expectations, and no detriment to organ donation was observed.

Utilization of deceased donors during a pandemic: argument against using SARS-CoV-2-positive donors.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly become an unprecedented pandemic that has impacted society, disrupted hospital functions, strained health care resources, and impacted the lives of transplant professionals. Despite this, organ failure and the need for transplant continues throughout the United States. Considering the perpetual scarcity of deceased donor organs, Kates et al present a viewpoint that advocates for the utilization of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-positive donors in selected cases. We present a review of the current literature that details the potential negative consequences of COVID-19-positive donors. The factors we consider include (1) the risk of blood transmission of SARS-CoV-2, (2) involvement of donor organs, (3) lack of effective therapies, (4) exposure of health care and recovery teams, (5) disease transmission and propagation, and (6) hospital resource utilization. While we acknowledge that transplant fulfills the mission of saving lives, it is imperative to consider the consequences not only to our recipients but also to the community and to health care workers, particularly in the absence of effective preventative or curative therapies. For these reasons, we believe the evidence and risks show that COVID-19 infection should continue to remain a contraindication for donation, as has been the initial response of donation and transplant societies.

Assessing Predictors of Early and Late Hospital Readmission After Kidney Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the risk factors of posttransplant hospital readmission is needed to develop accurate predictive models. METHODS: We included 40 461 kidney transplant recipients from United States renal data system (USRDS) between 2005 and 2014. We used Prentice, Williams and Peterson Total time model to compare the importance of various risk factors in predicting posttransplant readmission based on the number of the readmissions (first vs subsequent) and a random forest model to compare risk factors based on the timing of readmission (early vs late). RESULTS: Twelve thousand nine hundred eighty-five (31.8%) and 25 444 (62.9%) were readmitted within 30 days and 1 year postdischarge, respectively. Fifteen thousand eight hundred (39.0%) had multiple readmissions. Predictive accuracies of our models ranged from 0.61 to 0.63. Transplant factors remained the main predictors for early and late readmission but decreased with time. Although recipients' demographics and socioeconomic factors only accounted for 2.5% and 11% of the prediction at 30 days, respectively, their contribution to the prediction of later readmission increased to 7% and 14%, respectively. Donor characteristics remained poor predictors at all times. The association between recipient characteristics and posttransplant readmission was consistent between the first and subsequent readmissions. Donor and transplant characteristics presented a stronger association with the first readmission compared with subsequent readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: These results may inform the development of future predictive models of hospital readmission that could be used to identify kidney transplant recipients at high risk for posttransplant hospitalization and design interventions to prevent readmission.

Rural-Urban Differences in In-Hospital Mortality Among Admissions for End-Stage Liver Disease in the United States.

Access to quality hospital care is a persistent problem for rural patients. Little is known about disparities between rural and urban populations regarding in-hospital outcomes for end-stage liver disease (ESLD) patients. We aimed to determine whether rural ESLD patients experienced higher in-hospital mortality than urban patients and whether disparities were attributable to the rurality of the patient or the center. This was a retrospective study of patient admissions in the National Inpatient Sample, a population-based sample of hospitals in the United States. Admissions were included if they were from adult patients who had an ESLD-related admission defined by codes from the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, between January 2012 and December 2014. The primary exposures of interest were patient-level rurality and hospital-level rurality. The main outcome was in-hospital mortality. We stratified our analysis by disease severity score. After accounting for patient- and hospital-level covariates, ESLD admissions to rural hospitals in every category of disease severity had significantly higher odds of in-hospital mortality than patient admissions to urban hospitals. Those with moderate or major risk of dying had more than twice the odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] for moderate risk, 2.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.62-3.59; OR for major risk, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.97-3.14). There was no association between patient-level rurality and mortality in the adjusted models. In conclusion, ESLD patients admitted to rural hospitals had increased odds of in-hospital mortality compared with those admitted to urban hospitals, and the differences were not attributable to patient-level rurality. Our results suggest that interventions to improve outcomes in this population should focus on the level of the health system.

Geographic inequity in transplant access.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Scarcity is a defining feature of the modern transplant landscape, and in light of chronic shortages in donor organs, there is cause for concern about geographic inequities in patients' access to lifesaving resources. Recent policy changes designed to ameliorate unequal donor supply and demand have brought new interest to measuring and addressing disparities at all stages of transplant care. The purpose of this review is to describe an overview of recent literature on geographic inequities in transplant access, focusing on kidney, liver, and lung transplantation and the impact of policy changes on organ allocation. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite a major change to the kidney allocation policy in 2014, geographic inequity in kidney transplant access remains. In liver transplantation, the debate has centered on the median acuity score at transplantation; however, a more thorough examination of disparities in access and survival has emerged. SUMMARY: Geographic differences in access and quality of transplant care are undeniable, but existing disparity metrics reflect disparities only among candidates who are waitlisted. Future research should address major gaps in our understanding of geographic inequity in transplant access, including patients who may be transplant-eligible but experience a wide variety of barriers in accessing the transplant waiting list.

State-Based Liver Distribution: Broad Sharing With Less Harm to Vulnerable and Underserved Communities Compared With Concentric Circles.

Allocation of livers for transplantation faces regulatory pressure to move toward broader sharing. A current proposal supported by the United Network for Organ Sharing Board of Directors relies on concentric circles, but its effect on socioeconomic inequities in access to transplant services is poorly understood. In this article, we offer a proposal that uses the state of donation as a unit of distribution, given that the state is a recognized unit of legal jurisdiction and socioeconomic health in many contexts. The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients liver simulated allocation model algorithm was used to generate comparative estimates of regional transplant volume and the impact of these considered changes with regard to vulnerable and high-risk patients on the waiting list and to disparities in wait-list access. State-based liver distribution outperforms the concentric circle models in overall system efficiency, reduced discards, and minimized flights for organs. Furthermore, the efflux of organs from areas of greater sociodemographic vulnerability and lesser wait-list access is more than 2-fold lower in a state-based model than in concentric circle alternatives. In summary, we propose that a state-based system offers a legally defensible, practical, and ethically sound alternative to geometric zones of organ distribution.

Report from the American Society of Transplantation on frailty in solid organ transplantation.

A consensus conference on frailty in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation sponsored by the American Society of Transplantation (AST) and endorsed by the American Society of Nephrology (ASN), the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS), and the Canadian Society of Transplantation (CST) took place on February 11, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona. Input from the transplant community through scheduled conference calls enabled wide discussion of current concepts in frailty, exploration of best practices for frailty risk assessment of transplant candidates and for management after transplant, and development of ideas for future research. A current understanding of frailty was compiled by each of the solid organ groups and is presented in this paper. Frailty is a common entity in patients with end-stage organ disease who are awaiting organ transplantation, and affects mortality on the waitlist and in the posttransplant period. The optimal methods by which frailty should be measured in each organ group are yet to be determined, but studies are underway. Interventions to reverse frailty vary among organ groups and appear promising. This conference achieved its intent to highlight the importance of frailty in organ transplantation and to plant the seeds for further discussion and research in this field.

Moving past "think local, act global": A perspective on geographic disparity.

The transplant community has debated the necessity and merits of broader organ distribution for several years, but the debate has been fundamentally shaped by inaccurate assessments of donor supply and demand. The possible legal requirements of distribution must be balanced with (a) the moral and statutory imperatives to reduce inequities resulting from socioeconomic disparity, and (b) the shortcomings of MELD in predicting mortality risk in rural areas. In this viewpoint, we use the example of liver transplantation to discuss the drivers of geographic disparity as a direct consequence of donation rates, local organ use, wealth, and poverty. Seen in this light, strategies seeking to equalize MELD at transplant across the United States risk severely exacerbating existing inequalities in access to health care.

Hospitalization Among Individuals Waitlisted For Kidney Transplant.

BACKGROUND: For patients waitlisted for a deceased-donor kidney, hospitalization is associated with a lower likelihood of transplantation and worse posttransplant outcomes. However, individual-, neighborhood-, and regional-level risk factors for hospitalization throughout the waitlist period and specific causes of hospitalization in this population are unknown. METHODS: We used United States Renal Data System Medicare-linked data on patients waitlisted between 2005 and 2013 with continuous enrollment in Medicare parts A and B (n = 53 810) to examine the association between annual hospitalization rate and a variety of demographic, clinical, and social factors. We used multilevel multivariable ordinal logistic regression to estimate odds ratios. RESULTS: Factors associated with significantly increased hospitalization rates among waitlisted individuals included older age, female sex, more years on dialysis before waitlisting, tobacco use, panel-reactive antibody greater than 0, public insurance or no insurance at end-stage renal disease diagnosis, more regional acute care hospital beds, and urban residence (all P < 0.05). Among patients dialysis-dependent when waitlisted, individuals with arteriovenous fistulas were significantly less likely than individuals with indwelling catheters or grafts to be hospitalized (odds ratios, 0.79 and 0.82, respectively, both P < 0.001). The most common causes of hospitalization were complications related to devices, implants, and grafts; hypertension; and sepsis. CONCLUSIONS: Individual- and regional-level variables were significantly associated with hospitalization while waitlisted, suggesting that personal, health system, and geographic factors may impact patients' risk. Conditions related to dialysis access and comorbidities were common hospitalization causes, underscoring the importance proper access management and care for additional chronic health conditions.

Racial/ethnic disparities in access to care and survival for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether controlling for differences in the use of invasive therapy affects racial/ethnic differences in survival of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) HCC data. Invasive therapy was defined as tumor ablation, hepatectomy, or liver transplant. Race/ethnicity was defined as white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or other. Racial/ethnic differences in overall and treatment-adjusted survival were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and base- and treatment-stratified multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. PATIENTS: All patients diagnosed as having stage I or II HCC from January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2006 (N = 13 244). SETTING: Data were obtained from the National Cancer Institute's SEER registry. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in survival by race/ethnicity accounting for the use of invasive therapy and treatment benefit. RESULTS: Overall, 32.8% of patients received invasive therapy. We found higher mortality rates in the base survival model for black (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.33) and Hispanic (1.08; 1.01-1.15) patients and lower mortality rates in Asian patients (0.87; 0.82-0.93) compared with whites. After treatment stratification, compared with white patients, blacks had a 12% higher mortality rate (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20), Hispanics had a similar mortality rate (0.97; 0.91-1.04), and Asians had a 16% lower mortality rate (0.84; 0.79-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: For early-stage HCC, racial/ethnic disparities in survival between minority and white patients are notable. After accounting for differences in stage, use of invasive therapy, and treatment benefit, no racial/ethnic survival disparity is evident between Hispanics and whites, but blacks have persistently poor survival.

Financial impact of surgical site infection after kidney transplantation: implications for quality improvement initiative design.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) after kidney transplantation has been associated with worse graft and patient survival. Although there are clinical incentives to reduce the incidence of SSI, it is unknown whether these are aligned with financial incentives for payers and providers. We use post-kidney transplant surgical site infection (SSI) to quantify the financial implications of surgical complications. The goal of this study was to quantify the financial costs of SSI after kidney transplantation and to determine the party bearing the brunt of these costs. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of all adult, first-time kidney-only transplant recipients at the University of Michigan Health System from September 2003 to April 2008 (n = 869). The primary exposure variable was SSI. SSI was defined as skin dehiscence, fascial dehiscence, or bowel evisceration. Primary outcomes measures were hospital revenue (payer costs), hospital inpatient costs, and hospital margin. We used simple univariate (t-test) analysis and multivariate (generalized linear regression) models to control for donor, recipient, and insurer characteristics. RESULTS: Eighteen percent of patients had documented SSIs. In cases with an SSI hospital revenue increased by $20,176, hospital margin decreased by $4,278, and hospital costs increased by $24,454. When adjusted for donor and recipient characteristics, SSI was independently associated with an $11,132 increase in hospital revenue. CONCLUSIONS: Although SSIs have negative financial effects on both hospitals and payers, the impact is greater on payers. Payers have the primary financial incentive to reduce SSI, and broad-based, quality improvement initiatives can be prudent investments for payers. Quantification of the costs associated with SSI can be used to define financial parameters for such initiatives that might prove beneficial to multiple stakeholders.

Early urologic complications after pediatric renal transplant: a single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Urologic complications cause substantial morbidity in the pediatric population after renal transplantation, but their impact on graft survival and transplant costs is poorly understood. In this retrospective review, we evaluated the records of all pediatric renal transplant recipients at our center from 1995 to 2004. METHODS: Patient demographics, presence of urinary leak, stricture, compression, or vesicoureteral reflux, and hospital costs were analyzed. Univariable analysis identified predictors of complications and of need for reoperation, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess graft survival in relation to urinary complications. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven children received renal transplants; mean follow-up was 1478+/-965 days. Nine (6.1%) patients had urologic complications and seven (4.8%) patients developed vesicoureteral reflux requiring reoperation. Sex, ischemia time, race, previous transplant, donor type, nephrectomy technique, and stent use did not affect the incidence of urologic complications. Previous urologic reconstruction and pretransplant ureteral pathologic conditions increased the risk of urologic complication and vesicoureteral reflux. Patients with urologic complications had equivalent graft survival, but triple the hospital costs of unaffected recipients. CONCLUSIONS: Prior urologic surgery is associated with increased risk of urologic complications posttransplant. Posttransplant urologic complications are associated with substantially increased costs in the first year after transplant, but not with decreased graft survival.