Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States

Jesse D. Schold, Kenneth A. Andreoni, Anil K. Chandraker, Robert S. Gaston, Jayme E. Locke, Amit Mathur, Timothy L. Pruett, Abbas Rana, Lloyd E. Ratner, Laura D. Buccini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Outcomes of patients receiving solid organ transplants in the United States are systematically aggregated into bi-annual Program-Specific Reports (PSRs) detailing risk-adjusted survival by transplant center. Recently, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) issued 5-tier ratings evaluating centers based on risk-adjusted 1-year graft survival. Our primary aim was to examine the reliability of 5-tier ratings over time. Using 10 consecutive PSRs for adult kidney transplant centers from June 2012 to December 2016 (n = 208), we applied 5-tier ratings to center outcomes and evaluated ratings over time. From the baseline period (June 2012), 47% of centers had at least a 1-unit tier change within 6 months, 66% by 1 year, and 94% by 3 years. Similarly, 46% of centers had at least a 2-unit tier change by 3 years. In comparison, 15% of centers had a change in the traditional 3-tier rating at 3 years. The 5-tier ratings at 4 years had minimal association with baseline rating (Kappa 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.002 to 0.158). Centers had a median of 3 different 5-tier ratings over the period (q1 = 2, q3 = 4). Findings were consistent for center volume, transplant rate, and baseline 5-tier rating. Cumulatively, results suggest that 5-tier ratings are highly volatile, limiting their utility for informing potential stakeholders, particularly transplant candidates given expected waiting times between wait listing and transplantation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Transplantation
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Volatilization
Transplants
Graft Survival
Registries
Transplantation
Confidence Intervals
Kidney
Survival

Keywords

  • Ethics and public policy
  • Graft survival
  • Health services and outcomes research
  • Kidney transplantation/nephrology
  • Organ transplantation in general
  • Patient education
  • Statistics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Transplantation
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States. / Schold, Jesse D.; Andreoni, Kenneth A.; Chandraker, Anil K.; Gaston, Robert S.; Locke, Jayme E.; Mathur, Amit; Pruett, Timothy L.; Rana, Abbas; Ratner, Lloyd E.; Buccini, Laura D.

In: American Journal of Transplantation, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Schold, Jesse D. ; Andreoni, Kenneth A. ; Chandraker, Anil K. ; Gaston, Robert S. ; Locke, Jayme E. ; Mathur, Amit ; Pruett, Timothy L. ; Rana, Abbas ; Ratner, Lloyd E. ; Buccini, Laura D. / Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States. In: American Journal of Transplantation. 2018.
@article{36abb4d91847452cbf7383b3a6a26044,
title = "Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States",
abstract = "Outcomes of patients receiving solid organ transplants in the United States are systematically aggregated into bi-annual Program-Specific Reports (PSRs) detailing risk-adjusted survival by transplant center. Recently, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) issued 5-tier ratings evaluating centers based on risk-adjusted 1-year graft survival. Our primary aim was to examine the reliability of 5-tier ratings over time. Using 10 consecutive PSRs for adult kidney transplant centers from June 2012 to December 2016 (n = 208), we applied 5-tier ratings to center outcomes and evaluated ratings over time. From the baseline period (June 2012), 47{\%} of centers had at least a 1-unit tier change within 6 months, 66{\%} by 1 year, and 94{\%} by 3 years. Similarly, 46{\%} of centers had at least a 2-unit tier change by 3 years. In comparison, 15{\%} of centers had a change in the traditional 3-tier rating at 3 years. The 5-tier ratings at 4 years had minimal association with baseline rating (Kappa 0.07, 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] -0.002 to 0.158). Centers had a median of 3 different 5-tier ratings over the period (q1 = 2, q3 = 4). Findings were consistent for center volume, transplant rate, and baseline 5-tier rating. Cumulatively, results suggest that 5-tier ratings are highly volatile, limiting their utility for informing potential stakeholders, particularly transplant candidates given expected waiting times between wait listing and transplantation.",
keywords = "Ethics and public policy, Graft survival, Health services and outcomes research, Kidney transplantation/nephrology, Organ transplantation in general, Patient education, Statistics",
author = "Schold, {Jesse D.} and Andreoni, {Kenneth A.} and Chandraker, {Anil K.} and Gaston, {Robert S.} and Locke, {Jayme E.} and Amit Mathur and Pruett, {Timothy L.} and Abbas Rana and Ratner, {Lloyd E.} and Buccini, {Laura D.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/ajt.14659",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "American Journal of Transplantation",
issn = "1600-6135",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expanding clarity or confusion? Volatility of the 5-tier ratings assessing quality of transplant centers in the United States

AU - Schold, Jesse D.

AU - Andreoni, Kenneth A.

AU - Chandraker, Anil K.

AU - Gaston, Robert S.

AU - Locke, Jayme E.

AU - Mathur, Amit

AU - Pruett, Timothy L.

AU - Rana, Abbas

AU - Ratner, Lloyd E.

AU - Buccini, Laura D.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Outcomes of patients receiving solid organ transplants in the United States are systematically aggregated into bi-annual Program-Specific Reports (PSRs) detailing risk-adjusted survival by transplant center. Recently, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) issued 5-tier ratings evaluating centers based on risk-adjusted 1-year graft survival. Our primary aim was to examine the reliability of 5-tier ratings over time. Using 10 consecutive PSRs for adult kidney transplant centers from June 2012 to December 2016 (n = 208), we applied 5-tier ratings to center outcomes and evaluated ratings over time. From the baseline period (June 2012), 47% of centers had at least a 1-unit tier change within 6 months, 66% by 1 year, and 94% by 3 years. Similarly, 46% of centers had at least a 2-unit tier change by 3 years. In comparison, 15% of centers had a change in the traditional 3-tier rating at 3 years. The 5-tier ratings at 4 years had minimal association with baseline rating (Kappa 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.002 to 0.158). Centers had a median of 3 different 5-tier ratings over the period (q1 = 2, q3 = 4). Findings were consistent for center volume, transplant rate, and baseline 5-tier rating. Cumulatively, results suggest that 5-tier ratings are highly volatile, limiting their utility for informing potential stakeholders, particularly transplant candidates given expected waiting times between wait listing and transplantation.

AB - Outcomes of patients receiving solid organ transplants in the United States are systematically aggregated into bi-annual Program-Specific Reports (PSRs) detailing risk-adjusted survival by transplant center. Recently, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) issued 5-tier ratings evaluating centers based on risk-adjusted 1-year graft survival. Our primary aim was to examine the reliability of 5-tier ratings over time. Using 10 consecutive PSRs for adult kidney transplant centers from June 2012 to December 2016 (n = 208), we applied 5-tier ratings to center outcomes and evaluated ratings over time. From the baseline period (June 2012), 47% of centers had at least a 1-unit tier change within 6 months, 66% by 1 year, and 94% by 3 years. Similarly, 46% of centers had at least a 2-unit tier change by 3 years. In comparison, 15% of centers had a change in the traditional 3-tier rating at 3 years. The 5-tier ratings at 4 years had minimal association with baseline rating (Kappa 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.002 to 0.158). Centers had a median of 3 different 5-tier ratings over the period (q1 = 2, q3 = 4). Findings were consistent for center volume, transplant rate, and baseline 5-tier rating. Cumulatively, results suggest that 5-tier ratings are highly volatile, limiting their utility for informing potential stakeholders, particularly transplant candidates given expected waiting times between wait listing and transplantation.

KW - Ethics and public policy

KW - Graft survival

KW - Health services and outcomes research

KW - Kidney transplantation/nephrology

KW - Organ transplantation in general

KW - Patient education

KW - Statistics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85041534029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85041534029&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ajt.14659

DO - 10.1111/ajt.14659

M3 - Article

C2 - 29316241

AN - SCOPUS:85041534029

JO - American Journal of Transplantation

JF - American Journal of Transplantation

SN - 1600-6135

ER -