Decision making in liver transplant selection committees: A multicenter study

Annals of Internal Medicine

Volumn 155, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 503-508

  Volk, Michael L ^a   Biggins, Scott W ^b   Huang, Mary Ann ^c   Argo, Curtis K ^d   Fontana, Robert J ^a   Anspach, Renee R ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b Anschutz Outpatient Pavilion   (United States)

^c HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; LIVER DISEASE; LIVER TRANSPLANT COMMITTEE; LIVER TRANSPLANTATION; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MENTAL HEALTH; MULTICENTER STUDY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT ADVOCACY; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REVIEW; SOCIAL STATUS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 80054722834     PISSN: 00034819     EISSN: 15393704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00006     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Kim WR, Brown RS Jr, Terrault NA, El-Serag H. Burden of liver disease in the United States: summary of a workshop. Hepatology. 2002;36:227-42.
2. Health Resources and Services Administration. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; 2010. Accessed at http://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/ on 19 August 2011.
3. United Network for Organ Sharing. Bylaws, Appendix B, Attachment I: Criteria for Transplant Program Designation. Richmond, VA: United Network for Organ Sharing; 2011. Accessed at www.unos.org/about/index.php?topic_bylaws on 19 August 2011.
4. Murray KF, Carithers RL Jr; AASLD. AASLD practice guidelines: Evaluation of the patient for liver transplantation. Hepatology. 2005;41:1407-32.
5. Boulware LE, Troll MU, Wang NY, Powe NR. Perceived transparency and fairness of the organ allocation system and willingness to donate organs: a national study. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:1778-87.
6. Reynolds SJ. A neurocognitive model of the ethical decision-making process: implications for study and practice. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91:737-48.
7. Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6:331-9.
8. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2002.
9. Walker D, Myrick F. Grounded theory: an exploration of process and procedure. Qual Health Res. 2006;16:547-59.
10. Patel V, Arocha J, Zhang J. Thinking and reasoning in medicine. In: Holyoak K, ed. Cambridge Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ Pr; 2004.
11. Howard RJ. The challenging triangle: balancing outcomes, transplant numbers and costs. Am J Transplant. 2007;7:2443-5.
12. Becker H. Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. Am Sociol Rev. 1958;23:652-60.
13. Iserson KV, Moskop JC. Triage in medicine, part I: concept, history, and types. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49:275-81.
14. Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients. U.S. Hospitals With Liver Transplant Centers. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation; 2010. Accessed at www.srtr.org/csr/current/Centers/TransplantCenters_New201012x.aspx?organcode_LI on 24 August 2011.
15. Abecassis MM, Burke R, Klintmalm GB, Matas AJ, Merion RM, Millman D, et al; American Society of Transplant Surgeons. American Society of Transplant Surgeons transplant center outcomes requirements-a threat to innovation. Am J Transplant. 2009;9:1279-86.
16. Rawls J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ Pr; 1971.
17. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2001.
18. Greitemeyer T, Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Frey D. Information sampling and group decision making: the effects of an advocacy decision procedure and task experience. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006;12:31-42.