Suppr超能文献

报告的器官移植受者科学注册系统 5 级评分系统对美国移植中心的影响:全国调查结果。

Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers: results of a national survey.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Department of Economics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.

出版信息

Transpl Int. 2018 Oct;31(10):1135-1143. doi: 10.1111/tri.13282. Epub 2018 Jun 10.

Abstract

In the United States, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) provides publicly available quality report cards. These reports have historically rated transplant programs using a 3-tier system. In 2016, the SRTR temporarily transitioned to a 5-tier system, which classified more programs as under-performing. As part of a larger survey about transplant quality metrics, we surveyed members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and American Society of Transplantation (N = 280 respondents) on transplant center experiences with patient and payer responses to the 5-tier SRTR ratings. Over half of respondents (n = 137, 52.1%) reported ≥1 negative effect of the new 5-tier ranking system, including losing patients, losing insurers, increased concern among patients, and increased concern among referring providers. Few respondents (n = 35, 13.7%) reported any positive effects of the 5-tier ranking system. Lower SRTR-reported scores on the 5-tier scale were associated with increased risk of reporting at least one negative effect in a logistic model (P < 0.01). The change to a more granular rating system provoked an immediate response in the transplant community that may have long-term implications for transplant hospital finances and patient options for transplantation.

摘要

在美国,移植受者科学登记处(SRTR)提供公开的质量报告卡。这些报告历史上使用三级系统对移植项目进行评级。2016 年,SRTR 暂时过渡到五级系统,将更多的项目归类为表现不佳。作为一项关于移植质量指标的更大调查的一部分,我们调查了美国移植外科医生协会和美国移植协会的成员(N=280 名受访者),了解移植中心在患者和支付方对 5 级 SRTR 评分的反应方面的经验。超过一半的受访者(n=137,52.1%)报告了新的 5 级排名系统至少有 1 个负面影响,包括失去患者、失去保险公司、患者的担忧增加,以及转诊医生的担忧增加。少数受访者(n=35,13.7%)报告了 5 级排名系统的任何积极影响。在逻辑模型中,SRTR 在 5 级量表上的评分较低与报告至少 1 个负面影响的风险增加相关(P<0.01)。更细粒度的评级系统的改变立即引发了移植界的反应,这可能对移植医院的财务和患者的移植选择产生长期影响。

相似文献

5
Seeking new answers to old questions about public reporting of transplant program performance in the United States.
Am J Transplant. 2019 Feb;19(2):317-323. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15051. Epub 2018 Sep 6.
6
7
Association of Heart Transplant Volume with Presence of Lung Transplant Programs and Heart Transplant's SRTR One-year Survival Rating.
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Jun;72(4):261-265. doi: 10.1055/a-2095-6636. Epub 2023 May 17.
8
Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients: collecting, analyzing, and reporting data on transplantation in the United States.
Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2013 Apr;27(2):50-6. doi: 10.1016/j.trre.2013.01.002. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
9
Time for reform in transplant program-specific reporting: AST/ASTS transplant metrics taskforce.
Am J Transplant. 2019 Jul;19(7):1888-1895. doi: 10.1111/ajt.15394. Epub 2019 May 23.
10
The impact of adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation on transplant center outcomes reporting.
Clin Transplant. 2017 Nov;31(11). doi: 10.1111/ctr.13120. Epub 2017 Oct 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Health Care Provider Clustering Using Fusion Penalty in Quasi-Likelihood.
Biom J. 2024 Sep;66(6):e202300185. doi: 10.1002/bimj.202300185.
2
Healthcare center clustering for Cox's proportional hazards model by fusion penalty.
Stat Med. 2023 Sep 10;42(20):3685-3698. doi: 10.1002/sim.9825. Epub 2023 Jun 14.

本文引用的文献

1
Kidney offer acceptance at programs undergoing a Systems Improvement Agreement.
Am J Transplant. 2018 Sep;18(9):2182-2188. doi: 10.1111/ajt.14907. Epub 2018 Jun 4.
2
Statistical approach to quality assessment in liver transplantation.
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2018 Feb;403(1):61-71. doi: 10.1007/s00423-017-1612-7. Epub 2017 Sep 9.
3
A Five-Tier System for Improving the Categorization of Transplant Program Performance.
Health Serv Res. 2018 Jun;53(3):1979-1991. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12726. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
5
Current state of clinical end-points assessment in transplant: Key points.
Transplant Rev (Orlando). 2016 Apr;30(2):92-9. doi: 10.1016/j.trre.2016.02.003. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
7
Association of Candidate Removals From the Kidney Transplant Waiting List and Center Performance Oversight.
Am J Transplant. 2016 Apr;16(4):1276-84. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13594. Epub 2016 Jan 14.
8
Considering potential benefits and consequences of hospital report cards: what are the next steps?
Health Serv Res. 2015 Apr;50(2):321-9. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12280.
9
Determinants of burnout among transplant surgeons: a national survey in the United States.
Am J Transplant. 2015 Mar;15(3):772-8. doi: 10.1111/ajt.13056. Epub 2015 Feb 12.
10
Association between liver transplant center performance evaluations and transplant volume.
Am J Transplant. 2014 Sep;14(9):2097-105. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12826. Epub 2014 Aug 4.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验