TY - JOUR
T1 - Process Variation in Liver, Kidney, and Pancreas Transplantation
T2 - A Multicenter Evaluation From the Consortium for the Holistic Assessment of Risk in Transplant
AU - Strauss, Alexandra T.
AU - Caicedo, Juan Carlos
AU - Welsh, Whitney
AU - Deierhoi Reed, Rhiannon
AU - Gordon, Elisa J.
AU - Taber, David
AU - Ng, Yue Harn
AU - Ross-Driscoll, Katie
AU - Schold, Jesse D.
AU - Serper, Marina
AU - Olson, Andrew
AU - Harding, Jessica L.
AU - Adams, Andrew
AU - Kirk, Allan D.
AU - McElroy, Lisa M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
PY - 2025/9/1
Y1 - 2025/9/1
N2 - Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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%). Conclusions. 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.
AB - Background. 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. Methods. 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. Results. 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%). Conclusions. 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.
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012955106
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105012955106#tab=citedBy
U2 - 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001850
DO - 10.1097/TXD.0000000000001850
M3 - Article
C2 - 40785851
AN - SCOPUS:105012955106
SN - 2373-8731
VL - 11
JO - Transplantation Direct
JF - Transplantation Direct
IS - 9
M1 - e1850
ER -