Tai D, Dhar A, Yusuf A, Marshall A, O'Beirne J, Patch D, Tsochatzis E, Alexander G, Portal J, Thalheimer U, Thorburn D, Kallis Y, Westbrook R H
Royal Free Hospital, United Kingdom.
Royal Free Hospital, United Kingdom; St Mary's Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Public Health. 2018 Jan;154:164-171. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2017.10.012. Epub 2017 Dec 22.
'Hub-and-spoke' networks may be one solution to reduce the geographical inequality in access to liver transplantation (LT) and the growing demands on, and saturation of, LT centres. It is not clear if such networks improve equity of access, deliver comparable patient outcomes or effect patient satisfaction.
Retrospective evaluation of outcomes and patient satisfaction within the Royal Free liver transplant 'hub-and-spoke' network.
Patient outcomes in those assessed for LT between September 2011 and 2014 at spoke centres (n = 4) were compared retrospectively with those assessed at the LT hub centre. Patient satisfaction questionnaires were completed and changes in LT referral patterns were explored with data obtained directly from NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT).
A total of 655 patients (180 spoke; 475 hub) were assessed for LT. Patients referred from spoke centres were more likely to have viral hepatitis as an underlying aetiology (72/180 vs 110/475; P < 0.001), or hepatocellular carcinoma (48/180 vs 60/475; P < 0.001) as an indication for LT and were more likely to be listed for LT when compared with hub patients (139/180 vs 312/475, P = 0.005). Mortality on the waiting list (9/123 vs 25/269, P = 0.57), waiting time to LT (64-days vs 78-days, P = 0.91) and Model for End-Stage liver disease (MELD)/United Kingdom End-Stage Liver Disease (UKELD) score (P = 0.24/0.26) in listed patients were equivalent as were 1- and 3-year patient and graft survival rates. Patient satisfaction rates were high at both types of centre, with significantly more patients preferring 'locally delivered care' at spoke vs hub (11/50 vs 70/73, P≤0.0001). Since the development of formal hub-and-spoke networks data from NHSBT based on postcode confirmed a significant increase in patients undergoing LT (153%) from spoke centres, whereas numbers assessed and transplanted from the hub centre have remained static.
Hub-and-spoke LT networks are effective in offering equivalent clinical outcomes, high patient satisfaction and alleviate clinical pressure on the hub centre. They have to potential to help eliminate the geographical disparity in mortality rates from chronic liver disease.
“中心-辐条”网络可能是减少肝移植(LT)获取方面地理不平等以及应对LT中心不断增长的需求和饱和状态的一种解决方案。目前尚不清楚此类网络是否能改善获取的公平性、提供可比的患者结局或影响患者满意度。
对皇家自由医院肝移植“中心-辐条”网络内的结局和患者满意度进行回顾性评估。
回顾性比较2011年9月至2014年期间在辐条中心(n = 4)接受LT评估的患者与在LT中心接受评估的患者的结局。完成患者满意度问卷调查,并利用直接从英国国民医疗服务体系血液与移植中心(NHSBT)获得的数据探讨LT转诊模式的变化。
共有655例患者接受了LT评估(180例来自辐条中心;475例来自中心)。与中心患者相比,从辐条中心转诊的患者更有可能以病毒性肝炎作为潜在病因(72/180对110/475;P < 0.001),或以肝细胞癌作为LT指征(48/180对60/475;P < 0.001),并且更有可能被列入LT名单(139/180对312/475,P = 0.005)。列入名单的患者在等待名单上的死亡率(9/123对25/269,P = 0.57)、等待LT的时间(64天对78天,P = 0.91)以及终末期肝病模型(MELD)/英国终末期肝病(UKELD)评分(P = 0.24/0.26)相当,1年和3年的患者及移植物生存率也相当。两种类型中心的患者满意度都很高,与中心相比,明显更多的患者更喜欢在辐条中心接受“本地提供的护理”(11/50对70/73,P≤0.0001)。自正式的“中心-辐条”网络建立以来,NHSBT基于邮政编码的数据证实,来自辐条中心接受LT的患者显著增加(153%),而从中心评估和移植的患者数量保持不变。
“中心-辐条”LT网络在提供同等临床结局、高患者满意度以及减轻中心临床压力方面是有效的。它们有潜力帮助消除慢性肝病死亡率方面的地理差异。