1. Identifying Patterns of Adverse Events of Solid Organ Transplantation Through Departmental Case Reviews
- Author
-
Amit K. Mathur, MD, MS, Cynthia Stemper-Bartkus, MSN, RN, Kevin Engholdt, MS, MBA, Andrea Thorp, MSN, RN, Melissa Dosmann, RN, Hasan Khamash, MD, Kunam S. Reddy, MD, Bashar Aqel, MD, Adyr Moss, MD, Harini Chakkera, MD, D. Eric Steidley, MD, Octavio Pajaro, MD, PhD, Sadia Shah, MD, Elizabeth J. Oakley, MS, and David Douglas, MD
- Subjects
Medicine (General) ,R5-920 - Abstract
The best approach to adverse-event review in solid organ transplantation is unknown. We initiated a departmental case review (DCR) method based on root-cause analysis methods in a high-volume multiorgan transplant center. We aimed to describe this process and its contributions to process improvement. Methods: Using our prospectively maintained transplant center quality portfolio, we performed a retrospective review of a 30-month period (October 26, 2015, to May 14, 2018) after DCR-process initiation at our center. We used univariate statistics to identify counts of adverse events, DCRs, death and graft-loss events, and quality improvement action-plan items identified during case review. We evaluated variation among organ groups in action-plan items, associated phase of transplant care, and quality improvement theme. Results: Over 30 months, we performed 1449 transplant and living donor procedures with a total of 45 deaths and 31 graft losses; 91 DCRs were performed (kidney transplant n=43; liver transplant n=24; pancreas transplant n=10; heart transplant n=6; lung transplant n=3; living donor n=5). Seventy-nine action-plan items were identified across improvement domains, including errors in clinical decision making, communication, compliance, documentation, selection, waitlist management, and administrative processes. Median time to review was 83 days and varied significantly by program. Median time to action-plan item completion was 9 weeks. Clinical decision making in the pretransplant phase was identified as an improvement opportunity in all programs. Conclusions: DCRs provide a robust approach to transplant adverse-event review. Quality improvement targets and domains may vary based on adverse-event profiles.
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF