Liver Transplant Center Performance Profiling: 2005–2011 Reports of the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients

Abstract

Context

Transplant center performance profiling provides important information for various concerned parties. Comparing a transplant center's performance against the performance of the best-in-class centers may help in understanding the performance thresholds for the underperforming centers.

Objectives

(1) To identify and describe “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)-red-flag” performers and the “best-in-class” performers and (2) to examine the relationships between a center's performance profile and outcomes such as 1-year observed mortality, 1-month observed mortality, 1-year risk-adjusted mortality, and volume.

Methods

The data for analysis was obtained from the published reports on the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients (SRTR) website for adult liver transplant programs compiled for the rolling 2½-year cohorts of patients and included 7 cohorts of liver transplant recipients in the study from January through July 1, 2002, through December 31, 2010. We defined 4 performance profiles: CMS-red-flag, lower-than-expected, higher-than-expected, and best-in-class performers.

Results

The current SRTR methods classify approximately 7% of the adult liver centers as CMS-red-flag performers and 6% of the centers as best-in-class performers in every reported period. Neither of the low-volume centers (<30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort) was profiled as CMS-red-flag until the 2010 reporting period. The transplant center's profile was significantly associated with the 1-year and 1-month observed mortality rates in every reported cohort (P < .001).

Conclusion

The CMS-red-flag profile can be characterized with the following: (1) the highest observed 1-year mortality, (2) the highest observed 1-month mortality, (3) a very large difference between the observed and adjusted mortality rates, and (4) the center volume greater than 30 liver transplants per 2½-year cohort. The SRTR methods are not sensitive for performance profiling in the centers that perform fewer than 30 orthotopic liver transplants per 2½-year cohort.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Edwards

. The effect of the volume of procedures at transplantation centers on mortality after liver transplantation. N Engl J Med. 1999;341(27):2049–2053.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS. Medicare program; hospital conditions of participation: Requirements for approval and re-approval of transplant centers to perform organ transplants. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2007;72(61):15197–15280.

Schold

Howard

. Prediction models assessing transplant center performance: Can a little knowledge be a dangerous thing. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(2):245–246.

Schold

Arrington

Levine

. Significant alterations in reported clinical practice associated with increased oversight of organ transplant center performance. Prog Transplant. 2010; 20(3):279–287.

Dickinson

Arrington

Fant

. SRTR program-specific reports on outcomes: A guide for the new reader. Am J Transplant. 2008;8(4 pt 2):1012–1026.

Dickinson

Shearon

O'Keefe

. SRTR center-specific reporting tools: Posttransplant outcomes. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(5 pt 2):1198–1211.

Levine

McCullough

Rodgers

Dickinson

Ashby

Schaubel

. Analytical methods and database design: Implications for transplant researchers, 2005. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(5 pt 2):1228–1242.

Abecassis

Burke

Kintmalm

. American Society of Transplant Surgeons transplant center outcomes requirements— a threat to innovation. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(6):1279–1286.

Howard

Cornell

Schold

. CMS oversight, OPOs and transplant centers and the law of unintended consequences. Clin Transplant. 2009;23(6):778–783.

10.

Kasiske

McBride

Cornell

. Report of a consensus conference on transplant program quality and surveillance. Am J Transplant. 2012;12(8):1988–1996.

11.

Summers DCS. Six Sigma: Basic Tools and Techniques. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2006:405.

12.

Dimick

Welch

Birkmeyer

. Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: The problem with small sample size. JAMA. 2004;292(7):847–851.

13.

Birkmeyer

Dimick

Staiger

. Operative mortality and procedure volume as predictors of subsequent hospital performance. Ann Surg. 2006;243(3):411–417.

14.

Finks

Osborne

Birkmeyer

. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(22):2128–2137.

15.

Tracy

Bennett

Danko

. Low volume is associated with worse patient outcomes for pediatric liver transplant centers. J Pediatr Surg. 2010;45(1):108–113.

16.

Scarborough

Pietrobon

Tuttle-Newhall

. Relationship between provider volume and outcomes for orthotopic liver transplantation. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(9): 1527–1533.

17.

Ozhathil

Smith

. Impact of center volume on increased-risk liver transplant outcomes. Liver Transpl. 2011; 17(10):1191–1199.

18.

Axelrod

Guidinger

McCullough

Leichtman

Punch

Merion

. Association of center volume with outcome after liver and kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant. 2004;4(6):920–927.

19.

Northup

Pruett

Stukenborg

Berg

. Survival after adult liver transplantation does not correlate with transplant center case volume in the MELD era. Am J Transplant. 2006;6(10):2455–2462.

20.

Hanley

Lippman-Hand

. If nothing goes wrong, is everything all right? Interpreting zero numerators. JAMA. 1983; 249(13):1743–1745.

21.

Dimick

Welch

. The zero mortality paradox in surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(1):13–16.

22.

Vandenbroucke

. Statistical modelling: The old standardisation problem in disguise. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1989;43(3):207–208.

23.

Abecassis

Burke

Cosimi

. Transplant center regulations—a mixed blessing? An ASTS council viewpoint. Am J Transplant. 2008;8(12):2496–2502.

24.

Nicholl

. Case-mix adjustment in non-randomised observational evaluations: The constant risk fallacy. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(11):1010–1013.

25.

Pressley

Patrick

. Frailty bias in comorbidity risk adjustments of community-dwelling elderly populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(8):753–760.

26.

Lilford

Mohammed

Spiegelhalter

Thomson

. Use and misuse of process and outcome data in managing performance of acute medical care: Avoiding institutional stigma. Lancet. 2004;363(9415):1147–1154.

27.

Gillespie

Merion

Ortiz-Rios

. Database comparison of the adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation cohort study (A2ALL) and the SRTR US Transplant Registry. Am J Transplant. 2010;10(7):1621–1633.