提高同种异体肝移植1年存活风险比。

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Resham Ramkissoon, Ashley Rosier, Savitha Iyengar, Timucin Taner, William Sanchez
{"title":"提高同种异体肝移植1年存活风险比。","authors":"Resham Ramkissoon, Ashley Rosier, Savitha Iyengar, Timucin Taner, William Sanchez","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002899","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) publishes outcomes of all transplant centres in the USA two times a year. The outcomes are publicly available and used by insurance payers and patients to assess the performance of a programme. Poor performance can result in temporary suspension or termination of a transplant programme. The estimated 1-year survival hazard ratio (EHR) is an important metric publicly reported by the SRTR.</p><p><strong>Problem: </strong>The EHR at our institution was 1.13, indicating a graft loss rate that was 13% higher than the national average.</p><p><strong>Methods/intervention: </strong>We defined an improvement in this metric as achieving an EHR of <1.0. Our balance measure was maintaining similar liver transplant volumes and avoiding limiting access to transplant. Using a causality tree, we identified there was no 'real time' assessment of programme risk or objective metric to assess this. An affinity diagram was used to determine high and intermediate risk factors for mortality and graft loss and, using a REDCap form (a web application used to manage our database) to track actual and potential complications, we calculated a weekly 'risk metric' that was introduced at multidisciplinary selection conference meetings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We remeasured our EHR at each interval release of the SRTR outcomes and found it to be 0.98 and 0.65 after implementing the 'risk metric.' During the intervention period, annual liver transplant volume remained above the baseline measure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By implementing a 'risk metric' to prospectively assess the risk of a low EHR at transplant selection committee meetings, we were able to reduce the EHR well below the national average without limiting access to liver transplants.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752011/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving 1-year liver allograft survival hazard ratios.\",\"authors\":\"Resham Ramkissoon, Ashley Rosier, Savitha Iyengar, Timucin Taner, William Sanchez\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002899\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) publishes outcomes of all transplant centres in the USA two times a year. The outcomes are publicly available and used by insurance payers and patients to assess the performance of a programme. Poor performance can result in temporary suspension or termination of a transplant programme. The estimated 1-year survival hazard ratio (EHR) is an important metric publicly reported by the SRTR.</p><p><strong>Problem: </strong>The EHR at our institution was 1.13, indicating a graft loss rate that was 13% higher than the national average.</p><p><strong>Methods/intervention: </strong>We defined an improvement in this metric as achieving an EHR of <1.0. Our balance measure was maintaining similar liver transplant volumes and avoiding limiting access to transplant. Using a causality tree, we identified there was no 'real time' assessment of programme risk or objective metric to assess this. An affinity diagram was used to determine high and intermediate risk factors for mortality and graft loss and, using a REDCap form (a web application used to manage our database) to track actual and potential complications, we calculated a weekly 'risk metric' that was introduced at multidisciplinary selection conference meetings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We remeasured our EHR at each interval release of the SRTR outcomes and found it to be 0.98 and 0.65 after implementing the 'risk metric.' During the intervention period, annual liver transplant volume remained above the baseline measure.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By implementing a 'risk metric' to prospectively assess the risk of a low EHR at transplant selection committee meetings, we were able to reduce the EHR well below the national average without limiting access to liver transplants.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11752011/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Open Quality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002899\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-002899","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:移植受者科学登记处(SRTR)每年两次公布美国所有移植中心的结果。结果是公开的,供保险支付方和患者用来评估项目的绩效。表现不佳可能导致移植计划暂时中止或终止。估计的1年生存风险比(EHR)是SRTR公开报告的一个重要指标。问题:我们机构的EHR是1.13,表明贪污失失率比全国平均水平高13%。方法/干预:我们将该指标的改进定义为实现结果的EHR:我们在SRTR结果的每个间隔发布时重新测量EHR,发现实施“风险指标”后的EHR为0.98和0.65。在干预期间,年肝移植量仍高于基线测量值。结论:通过在移植选择委员会会议上实施“风险指标”来前瞻性评估低EHR的风险,我们能够在不限制肝移植的情况下将EHR降低到远低于全国平均水平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving 1-year liver allograft survival hazard ratios.

Background: The Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) publishes outcomes of all transplant centres in the USA two times a year. The outcomes are publicly available and used by insurance payers and patients to assess the performance of a programme. Poor performance can result in temporary suspension or termination of a transplant programme. The estimated 1-year survival hazard ratio (EHR) is an important metric publicly reported by the SRTR.

Problem: The EHR at our institution was 1.13, indicating a graft loss rate that was 13% higher than the national average.

Methods/intervention: We defined an improvement in this metric as achieving an EHR of <1.0. Our balance measure was maintaining similar liver transplant volumes and avoiding limiting access to transplant. Using a causality tree, we identified there was no 'real time' assessment of programme risk or objective metric to assess this. An affinity diagram was used to determine high and intermediate risk factors for mortality and graft loss and, using a REDCap form (a web application used to manage our database) to track actual and potential complications, we calculated a weekly 'risk metric' that was introduced at multidisciplinary selection conference meetings.

Results: We remeasured our EHR at each interval release of the SRTR outcomes and found it to be 0.98 and 0.65 after implementing the 'risk metric.' During the intervention period, annual liver transplant volume remained above the baseline measure.

Conclusion: By implementing a 'risk metric' to prospectively assess the risk of a low EHR at transplant selection committee meetings, we were able to reduce the EHR well below the national average without limiting access to liver transplants.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信