TY - JOUR
T1 - Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers
T2 - results of a national survey
AU - Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Sarah E.
AU - Thomas, Alvin G.
AU - Garonzik-Wang, Jacqueline
AU - Henderson, Macey L.
AU - Stith, Sarah S.
AU - Segev, Dorry L.
AU - Nicholas, Lauren Hersch
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, grant number K01AG041763 from the National Institute on Aging (NIA), and grant numbers K24DK101828 and R01DK096008 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). The analyses described here are the responsibility of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Steunstichting ESOT
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients
KW - quality of care/care delivery
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053001101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053001101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/tri.13282
DO - 10.1111/tri.13282
M3 - Article
C2 - 29802802
AN - SCOPUS:85053001101
SN - 0934-0874
VL - 31
SP - 1135
EP - 1143
JO - Transplant International
JF - Transplant International
IS - 10
ER -