Outcome differences across transplant centers: Comparison of two methods for public reporting

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Volumn 6, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 2838-2845

  Zenios, Stefanos ^a,b   Atias, Glenn ^a   McCulloch, Charles ^c   Petrou, Constantia ^a  

^a Konnectologycom   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GENERALIZED MIXED EFFECT METHOD; GRAFT FAILURE; GRAFT RECIPIENT; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OBSERVED TO EXPECT METHOD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY CONTROL; RISK FACTOR; TRANSPLANTATION CENTER;

ADULT; AGED; FEMALE; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HUMANS; KIDNEY TRANSPLANTATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 83155192635     PISSN: 15559041     EISSN: 1555905X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00300111     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Levine GN, McCullough KP, Rodgers AM, Dickinson DM, Ashby VB, Schaubel DE: The 2005 SRTR report on the state of transplantation: Analytical methods and database design: Implications for transplant researchers. Am J Transplant 6: 1228-1242, 2005
2. Ash AS, Shwartz M, Pekoz E: Comparing outcomes across providers. In Risk Adjustment for Measuring Health Outcomes, edited by Iezzoni L, Chicago, Health Administration Press, 2003
3. McCulloch CE, Searle SR: Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. New York, John Wiley & Son, 2001
4. Shahian DM, Normand S, Torchiana DF, Lewis SM, Pastore JO, Kuntz RE, Dreyer PI: Cardiac surgery report cards: Comprehensive review and statistical critique. The Ann Thorac Surg 72: 2155-2168, 2001
5. Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund MS: Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 295: 1912-1920, 2000
6. McGrath PD, Wennberg, DE and Dickens JD Jr: Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stents. JAMA 284: 3139-3144, 2000
7. National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Diabetes, Digestive, and Kidney Diseases: Researcher's Guide to the USRDS Database, Bethesda, MD, United States Renal Data System, 2004
8. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources 2010 Annual Data Report of the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, 2010, US Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Rockville, MD
9. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Tusler M: Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? Health Affairs 22: 84-94, 2003
10. Zenios S, Denend L: United Resource Networks: Facilitating Win-Win-Win Solutions in Organ Transplantation. Stanford, California, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, OIT-46, 2005
11. Marshall MN, Romano PS, Davies HTO: How do we maximize the impact of the public reporting of quality of care? Int J Quality Health Care 16: i57-i63, 2004
12. Chernew JT, Kolstad ME: Quality and consumer decision making in the market for health insurance and health care services. Med Care Res Rev 66: 28S-52S, 2009
13. Federal Registrar, Medicare Program: Hospital Conditions of Participation: Requirements for Approval and Re-Approval of Transplant Centers To Perform Organ Transplants, 42 CFR Parts 405, 482, 488, and 498, 2007, US Department of Health of Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Baltimore, MD