Transplant Center Quality Assessment Using a Continuously Updatable, Risk‐Adjusted Technique (CUSUM)

Access to timely, risk‐adjusted measures of transplant center outcomes is crucial for program quality improvement. The cumulative summation technique (CUSUM) has been proposed as a sensitive tool to detect persistent, clinically relevant changes in transplant center performance over time. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for adult kidney and liver transplants (1/97 to 12/01) were examined using logistic regression models to predict risk of graft failure (kidney) and death (liver) at 1 year. Risk‐adjusted CUSUM charts were constructed for each center and compared with results from the semi‐annual method of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). Transplant centers (N = 258) performed 59 650 kidney transplants, with a 9.2% 1‐year graft failure rate. The CUSUM method identified centers with a period of significantly improving (N = 92) or declining (N = 52) performance. Transplant centers (N = 114) performed 18 277 liver transplants, with a 13.9% 1‐year mortality rate. The CUSUM method demonstrated improving performance at 48 centers and declining performance at 24 centers. The CUSUM technique also identified the majority of centers flagged by the current OPTN method (20/22 kidney and 8/11 liver). CUSUM monitoring may be a useful technique for quality improvement, allowing center directors to identify clinically important, risk‐adjusted changes in transplant center outcome.

[1]  R Rayman,et al.  Cumulative sum failure analysis of a policy change from on-pump to off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. , 2001, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[2]  R. Wolfe,et al.  Analytical approaches for transplant research , 2003, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[3]  R. Merion,et al.  Association of Center Volume with Outcome After Liver and Kidney Transplantation , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[4]  W. Boyd,et al.  Analysis of the learning curve in telerobotic, beating heart coronary artery bypass grafting: a 90 patient experience. , 2003, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[5]  D. Goldfarb,et al.  Donor characteristics associated with reduced graft survival: an approach to expanding the pool of kidney donors. , 2003, The Journal of urology.

[6]  Sammy Saab,et al.  Pretransplant Model to Predict Posttransplant Survival in Liver Transplant Patients , 2002, Annals of surgery.

[7]  K McPherson,et al.  Statistics: the problem of examining accumulating data more than once. , 1974, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  R J Cook,et al.  Risk-Adjusted Monitoring of Binary Surgical Outcomes , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  Suzanne L. Holcombe National Technical Information Service , 2008 .

[10]  R. Wolfe,et al.  Analytical approaches for transplant research , 2004, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[11]  J. Trotter,et al.  MELD scores of liver transplant recipients according to size of waiting list: impact of organ allocation and patient outcomes. , 2004, JAMA.

[12]  Martin Bland,et al.  Retrospective cohort study of false alarm rates associated with a series of heart operations: the case for hospital mortality monitoring groups , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Thomas L Forbes,et al.  Cumulative sum failure analysis of the learning curve with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. , 2004, Journal of vascular surgery.

[14]  D G Altman,et al.  The hidden effect of time. , 1988, Statistics in medicine.