Strauss Alexandra T, Caicedo Juan Carlos, Welsh Whitney, Reed Rhiannon Deierhoi, Gordon Elisa J, Taber David, Ng Yue Harn, Ross-Driscoll Katie, Schold Jesse D, Serper Marina, Olson Andrew, Harding Jessica L, Adams Andrew, Kirk Allan D, McElroy Lisa M
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
Malone Center for Engineering in Healthcare, Johns Hopkins University Whiting School of Engineering, Baltimore, MD.
Transplant Direct. 2025 Aug 8;11(9):e1850. doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001850. eCollection 2025 Sep.
Transplant center processes for determining candidacy are complex, poorly documented, ambiguous, and variable across centers. Opaque and nonstandardized transplant processes can compromise data collection and lead to inconsistent outcomes.
To understand process variation and data quality in transplantation, we surveyed 8 abdominal transplant centers in an existing research consortium about their processes of care for liver, kidney, and pancreas transplants. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model to identify variation related to people, tasks, tools, environment, and processes.
Centers varied in their processes across phases of transplant care, including screening referral, waitlist maintenance, and posttransplant follow-up. Regarding referrals, transplant centers chose their locations for outreach to and education for referring providers based on historical density or by request (63%). Additionally, screening of referred patients for transplant evaluation varied across centers related to screening method, screening timing/attempts, and who determines eligibility. For patients declined for listing, only 25% of centers had a formal appeal process (liver only), and most centers had either an informal appeal process (liver: 50%, kidney and pancreas: 87.5%) or none (liver: 25%, kidney and pancreas: 12.5%).
In light of increased national attention to improving data collection, processes of care, and workforce efficiency, our findings provide insight into processes that may inform effective transplant practices and identify targets for future interventions.
各移植中心用于确定候选资格的流程复杂、记录不完善、含混不清且各中心之间存在差异。不透明且不规范的移植流程可能会影响数据收集,并导致结果不一致。
为了解移植过程中的流程差异和数据质量,我们对一个现有研究联盟中的8个腹部移植中心进行了调查,了解它们在肝、肾和胰腺移植护理方面的流程。我们使用患者安全系统工程倡议模型来识别与人员、任务、工具、环境和流程相关的差异。
各中心在移植护理各阶段的流程存在差异,包括筛查转诊、等待名单管理和移植后随访。关于转诊,移植中心根据历史密度或应要求选择向转诊提供者进行外展和教育的地点(63%)。此外,各中心对转诊患者进行移植评估的筛查在筛查方法、筛查时间/尝试次数以及由谁确定资格方面存在差异。对于被拒绝列入名单的患者,只有25%的中心有正式的上诉程序(仅肝脏移植),大多数中心要么有非正式的上诉程序(肝脏移植:50%,肾脏和胰腺移植:87.5%),要么没有(肝脏移植:25%,肾脏和胰腺移植:12.5%)。
鉴于国家越来越重视改善数据收集、护理流程和劳动力效率,我们的研究结果为可能有助于有效移植实践的流程提供了见解,并确定了未来干预的目标。