1 / 11

Revising the Current Flagging Method for Transplant Program Post-Transplant Performance Reviews

Revising the Current Flagging Method for Transplant Program Post-Transplant Performance Reviews. Membership & Professional Standards Committee Fall 2013. The Problem. Current flagging method Identifies too many low volume programs Fails to identify many medium volume programs

reya
Download Presentation

Revising the Current Flagging Method for Transplant Program Post-Transplant Performance Reviews

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Revising the Current Flagging Method for Transplant Program Post-Transplant Performance Reviews Membership & Professional Standards Committee Fall 2013

  2. The Problem • Current flagging method • Identifies too many low volume programs • Fails to identify many medium volume programs • Movement to Bayesian methodology

  3. Goal of the Proposal • Identify programs that are truly underperforming • Increase the probability that underperforming programs are flagged • Decrease the probability that average programs are flagged by mistake

  4. How the Proposal will Achieve its Goal • Use of Bayesian methodology by SRTR • New thresholds for flagging programs that perform>9 transplants in 2.5 years • P[HR>1.2]>75%, or • P[HR>2.5]>10% • Small volume <10 transplants – 1 event within 2.5 year cohort

  5. Supporting Evidence • Bayesian methodology supported by • Committee of Presidents of Statistical Societies (COPSS) • Consensus Conference on Transplant Program Quality and Surveillance • SRTR Technical Advisory Committee • SRTR calculated flagging rates for 57,915 possible Bayesian flagging algorithms

  6. Supporting Evidence

  7. Supporting Evidence • Bayesian flagging algorithms should… • Have fewer false positive flags for small volume programs • Have more true positive flags for medium to larger volume programs

  8. Supporting Evidence • Historical review using January 2008 cohort data • Bayesian example used for this review • Slightly different than proposed algorithm • Proposed more effective at increasing true positives and decreasing false positive

  9. What Members will Need to Do • Flagging methodology is screening mechanism to identify programs that merit further inquiry • No change to data reported by program or used by SRTR • No change to process of review by MPSC

  10. Questions? • Carl Berg, M.D., Committee Chaircarl.berg@duke.edu • Region # Representativename@email • Sharon Shepherd, Committee Liaisonsharon.shepherd@unos.org • Tabitha Leighton, SRTR Representativesrtr@srtr.org

  11. Request for Inactivation/Withdrawal Language • Codifies current practice of MPSC—transparency • Rarely used – patient safety implications • Generally inactivation while improvements implemented

More Related