Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • ASN Meeting Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
    • Reprint Information
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
    • Feedback
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Commentary
You have accessRestricted Access

Building an Ideal Quality Metric for ESRD Health Care Delivery

Jesse D. Schold, Laura D. Buccini, Michael P. Phelan, Colleen L. Jay, David A. Goldfarb, Emilio D. Poggio and John R. Sedor
CJASN August 2017, 12 (8) 1351-1356; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01020117
Jesse D. Schold
*Department of Quantitative Health Sciences and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura D. Buccini
*Department of Quantitative Health Sciences and
†Digestive Disease,
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael P. Phelan
‡Emergency Services, and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Colleen L. Jay
§University of Texas Health, San Antonio, Texas; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David A. Goldfarb
‖Glickman Urological and Kidney Institutes, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emilio D. Poggio
‖Glickman Urological and Kidney Institutes, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
John R. Sedor
¶Departments of Medicine, Physiology and Biophysics, Case Western Reserve University, Rammelkamp Center for Research and Education, MetroHealth System, Cleveland, Ohio
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • quality
  • performance evaluations
  • report cards
  • ESRD
  • transplantation
  • survival
  • Delivery of Health Care
  • Kidney Failure
  • Chronic

Introduction

The utilization of quality metrics to monitor provider performance has increased substantially within the United States health care system over the past decade. Virtually all health care providers are now held accountable by regulatory agencies for patient outcomes, patient satisfaction, and established best practices. These metrics have been a key attribute of health care reform to promote decisions that positively affect patient health. Numerous studies have examined the influence of report cards on outcomes, clinician and patient behavior, and financing in various health care contexts. At a broad level, empirical evidence shows both significant benefits associated with quality oversight and unintended consequences that may detrimentally affect health care delivery (1,2).

The implementation of report cards in regulatory oversight processes is perhaps no more prominent than in the ESRD program. In particular, regulatory agencies generate publically available report cards for health care organizations that directly treat or affect prognoses of patients with ESRD that have significant ramifications on public perception of institutional performance and can affect clinical and patient decision making. In this commentary, we discuss the components of the current report cards for ESRD providers and potential challenges and misalignment between the metrics used for quality evaluation for different providers that can adversely affect patient care. We also propose the concept of an ideal report card with the intent to construct a measure that better aligns incentives between different providers to optimize outcomes for the ESRD population.

Current Quality Oversight for Patients with ESRD Providers

Quality reports for organizations that affect outcomes of patients with ESRD are highly visible in the public domain. These publicly available data are directly used for regulatory review, reimbursement, and contracting by private payer organizations. The designation of poor or exceptional performance for providers may significantly influence the reputation and financial health of providers and undoubtedly, can affect patient choice of dialysis facility and transplant center. In this commentary, we consider three types of ESRD care delivery organizations, namely dialysis centers, organ procurement organizations (OPOs), and transplant centers. Clearly, these institutions do not represent all providers for the ESRD population (or more broadly, the pre-ESRD population), but we focus on these providers on the basis of their direct effect on outcomes of patients with ESRD and the well established report cards used to evaluate their performance.

The specific metrics that are currently published and used for rating the quality of ESRD providers are listed on Table 1. For dialysis centers, numerous metrics are available on the Dialysis Facility Compare website (www.medicare.gov/dialysisfacilitycompare) that assess both processes of care and patient outcomes by facility. In addition to general characteristics and contact information for dialysis centers, individual clinical parameters and outcomes are available along with a composite five-star rating, in which facilities are compared on a normative reference. As a part of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Incentive Program, these performance metrics may affect up to 2% of reimbursement for dialysis providers (3).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Quality metrics currently used to assess providers for patients with ESRD

OPO performance metrics are published publicly by the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR; www.srtr.org) on a biannual basis (4). These data are used by both the CMS and the Membership and Professional Standards Committee (MPSC), which is charged with evaluating whether OPOs remain in compliance for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) and the United Network for Organ Sharing. OPOs are held accountable by several metrics, including a new donor yield measure evaluating the number of organs transplanted per donor after adjustment for donor characteristics (5).

Transplant centers also receive biannual Program-Specific Reports by the SRTR, which include descriptive data about the recipient and donor populations at each center along with several risk-adjusted measures outlined in Table 1. The metrics that are primarily used for quality oversight for transplant centers are risk-adjusted 1-year graft and patient survival for each solid organ recipient cohort. On the basis of the Conditions of Participation by the CMS, OPOs and transplant centers that fail to meet quality thresholds may be required to enter into a quality improvement program including a Systems Improvement Agreement and potentially lose government funding on the basis of repeated low performance (6). Transplant centers are also evaluated by the MPSC/OPTN on the basis of adjusted 1-year graft and patient survival using different statistical evaluation of 1-year outcomes than those used by the CMS (7,8).

The Problems of Misaligned Incentives

One of the most notable facets of current quality oversight is that there are no existing metrics that extend beyond individual provider. Because the health care needs of patients with ESRD are rarely met by a single provider, it is important that high-quality delivery of care is integrated and coordinated and that information is effectively shared between providers with the paramount goal of optimizing patient outcomes. Thus, forms of misaligned quality metrics may occur if they do not promote or even dissuade cohesive care between providers or if there is misalignment between the measured performance of the individual provider and the optimal care for patients. In this commentary, we discuss examples in which quality metrics for specific ESRD care delivery organizations are misaligned and may negatively affect patient outcomes.

We consider the current metrics used for dialysis programs and the discordance with promoting cohesive patient care delivery for potential transplant candidates. Although metrics account for measurable variations in the acuity of patients on dialysis, the system of oversight does not incentivize expeditious referral of patients to transplantation. In fact, patients with ESRD who are most likely to perform well on certain quality measures for dialysis centers (e.g., reduced cardiovascular events and mortality risk) may also include the ideal transplant candidates (9–11). This issue is coupled with relatively new forms of bundled payments, such as those for patients with ESRD, that are also cost effective (i.e., requiring the least interventions) for dialysis centers and may be the most viable for rapid placement for transplant evaluation. This is problematic, because dialysis centers are placed in an unfortunate circumstance in which patients who are most likely to improve their measured quality and financial performance are also commonly the most important to refer to a transplant program (and subsequent outcomes are no longer attributable to the dialysis center). Thus, there is a glaring gap in current quality metrics used for dialysis programs to incentivize rapid placement of patients as transplant candidates and/or living donor transplant recipients. Furthermore, given the robust evidence indicating the improved life expectancy, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of transplantation relative to maintenance dialysis, the lack of incentives to expeditiously promote transplantation may place optimal measured dialysis facility quality at odds with the optimal treatment for certain patients (10,12). Although there is current documentation that patients on dialysis must be educated about transplantation, this form of education has been shown to be variable and is not consistently administered or understood by patients (13). Moreover, there is wide heterogeneity in standardized transplantation rates of dialysis centers, rendering the need to incorporate incentives for dialysis centers to identify potential transplant candidates an imperative (14,15).

Another example of misaligned incentives is between OPOs and transplant centers. The primary metrics currently used to evaluate transplant centers are 1-year patient and graft survival. Although these metrics are risk adjusted for numerous recipient and donor characteristics, there is compelling evidence that centers reduce transplant rates after low-performance evaluations, potentially illustrating reluctance to accept relatively higher-risk organs and patients (16–18). Centers also have a reduction of patients with private payer insurance associated with receiving lower performance evaluations, suggesting loss in contracts and financial benefits to centers (19). Thus, despite the efficacy (and cost-effectiveness) of kidney transplantation, centers may not be as aggressive accepting relatively higher-risk patients or donors on the basis of potential consequences associated with low performance metrics. OPOs are evaluated on the basis of donation rates and donor yield (organs transplanted per donor). Although identification of deceased donors and procurement of organs that are viable for transplantation are critical roles of OPOs, organs that are not ultimately accepted for transplantation by centers (i.e., discarded) may detrimentally affect OPO metrics. Thus, the aggressiveness of OPOs to procure organs from certain donors in a risk-averse transplant environment may be tempered. Alternatively, if OPO metrics were designed in such a way to incentivize accessing all available deceased donor organs and if transplant centers were not reluctant to accept organs over concerns for their effect on measured performance, the rate of transplantation may significantly increase.

The importance of aligned incentives is paramount to reinforce cohesive care between providers. Most importantly, the lack of coordination among providers may hinder processes of care and place quality metrics at odds with optimal patient outcomes. Given that there is substantial evidence that quality report cards alter provider behavior, incentives that only targets outcomes in a narrow window of care may run counter to what is most impactful to patients. From a patient’s perspective, achieving the optimal outcomes across care providers is most critical. For patients with ESRD who are potential transplant candidates, metrics should strongly encourage timely transplant referral. Transplant centers should not be solely evaluated on the basis of 1-year post-transplant outcomes (conditional on if a patient survives to the time that a transplant is available). In fact, there is significantly more variation in patient survival explained by centers’ rates of transplantation than 1-year post-transplant survival rate (20). Furthermore, the differences in transplant recipient survival are minor between the best and worst transplant centers compared with patient expected survival with any transplant compared with remaining on dialysis (16). Lastly, metrics that do not incentivize procurement of all available deceased donor organs for OPOs may attenuate the rate of deceased donor allocation and transplantation and ultimately, extend waiting times to transplant and waitlist mortality.

Considering an Ideal Quality Metric for ESRD Providers

Given the misaligned incentives of current quality metrics, the more difficult conundrum is to consider ideal metrics that would eliminate conflicts of incentives and align incentives of the providers with the best interest of the patient population across the spectrum of care. Qualities of an ideal metric include meaningful measures that directly affect outcomes, minimize the potential for unintended consequences, are nongameable and made up of consistently collected objective measures, and adequately account for the acuity and characteristics of patients. In addition, there is clear need to incorporate patient perspectives and individual decision making within a quality assessment framework (21–24). These parameters may include patient preferences, reported quality of life, and implementation of shared decision making, but relative to their importance in care, these metrics may not now be sufficiently quantifiable to be included in quality assessments. With these characteristics in mind, we propose a framework by which incentives between organizations would be more directly aligned with the focus on patient outcomes across the continuity of care provided.

We propose consideration of a shared accountability model, in which ESRD providers are jointly responsible for the outcomes of patients within a defined geographic region. The concept of this model is to broaden the perspective of care beyond individual providers and encourage coordination between providers to achieve outcomes that are beneficial to patients across transitions in care. For example, consider a quality metric evaluating the outcomes for a given ESRD population that are attributed to each of the organizations discussed in this commentary (dialysis centers, OPOs, and transplant centers). In this model, a measure could be used to evaluate the all-cause mortality rate (for example) for patients from the time of ESRD onset and extending throughout their transitions in care. Providers would be highly incentivized to coordinate care with collective responsibility and aligned priorities for the patient population for which they are responsible. Quality assessment would extend beyond the confines of individual providers and be more consistent with a patient-centric viewpoint, which would be irrespective of the specific care provider (25). The individual metrics, defined populations, and geographic regions would need to be carefully considered (examples are listed in Table 2). However, the concept of extending this model beyond silos of care may strongly affect incentives for providers and eliminate artificially induced discordance in objectives. Importantly, the ESRD population is carefully tracked through transitions in care (Figure 1) by current data collection systems, affording an opportunity to design metrics that account for longitudinal outcomes. Moreover, given that the CMS (and the US Department of Health and Human Services) adjudicates quality measures and finances a large proportion of care for each of the providers discussed in this commentary, there is additional opportunity to take a high-level view of quality of care beyond a silo approach that could simultaneously incentivize care that improves ESRD outcomes and cost-effective care.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Key elements of a proposed shared accountability model for ESRD health care delivery

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Treatment pathways and quality oversight for ESRD health care delivery. Currently, dialysis centers, organ procurement organizations (OPOs), and transplant (Tx) centers are evaluated for quality in isolation (red circles). Our proposed model is to evaluate providers simultaneously on the basis of outcomes for a population of patients with ESRD throughout transitions of care (green box). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services uses data to evaluate quality of each of these providers. ARF, acute renal failure; DD, deceased donor.

There are also significant challenges with our proposal that we acknowledge. The specific attribution of patients in a defined geographic region to a set of providers would need to be carefully considered. There would inevitability be dissent regarding the designation of quality that is deemed the responsibility of other providers within a given region. This framework also does not alleviate problems with unmeasured risks that explain patient outcomes and are not affected by quality of care (26–28). These unmeasured risks include social factors and community-level risks that are not typically incorporated into quality measures and may not reflect quality of care but may ultimately have significant effect on patient outcomes. Moreover, because these factors tend to cluster geographically, some accounting for these “underlying risks” may be crucially important (27,29). In addition, although outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, have several advantages as an end point used for quality metrics, we would certainly agree that other end points are equally if not more important to consider including patient-reported outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and value of care (30–32). However, we must consider the benefits relative to the status quo and acknowledge that many of these same limitations exist with current metrics and in our view, promote significant unintended consequences. We submit that, despite the specific metric used, the concept of treating a patient population as a whole, considering ESRD as an episode of care, aligning incentives and promoting engagement between providers, and keeping long-term patient outcomes as a focus have great potential and are preferable to the current metrics that reward behaviors that may be inconsistent with patients’ long-term best interest.

As discussed by Michael Porter on the subject of value of health care, “[t]he benefits of any one intervention for ultimate outcomes will depend on the effectiveness of other intervention throughout the care cycle. Accountability of value should be shared among the providers involved. Thus, rather than focused factories concentrating on narrow groups of interventions, we need integrated practices that are accountable for the total care for a medical condition and its complications” (33). In what medical context would these concepts apply better than ESRD?

Disclosures

None.

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Casalino LP,
    2. Gans D,
    3. Weber R,
    4. Cea M,
    5. Tuchovsky A,
    6. Bishop TF,
    7. Miranda Y,
    8. Frankel BA,
    9. Ziehler KB,
    10. Wong MM,
    11. Evenson TB
    : US physician practices spend more than $15.4 billion annually to report quality measures. Health Aff (Millwood) 35: 401–406, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Mukamel DB,
    2. Haeder SF,
    3. Weimer DL
    : Top-down and bottom-up approaches to health care quality: The impacts of regulation and report cards. Annu Rev Public Health 35: 477–497, 2014
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS: Medicare program; end-stage renal disease prospective payment system, coverage and payment for renal dialysis services furnished to individuals with acute kidney injury, end-stage renal disease quality incentive program, durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies competitive bidding program bid surety bonds, state licensure and appeals process for breach of contract actions, durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics and supplies competitive bidding program and fee schedule adjustments, access to care issues for durable medical equipment; and the comprehensive end-stage renal disease care model. Final rule. Fed Regist 81: 77834–77969, 2016
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Dickinson DM,
    2. Arrington CJ,
    3. Fant G,
    4. Levine GN,
    5. Schaubel DE,
    6. Pruett TL,
    7. Roberts MS,
    8. Wolfe RA
    : SRTR program-specific reports on outcomes: A guide for the new reader. Am J Transplant 8: 1012–1026, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS: Medicare and Medicaid programs; conditions for coverage for organ procurement organizations (OPOs). Final rule. Fed Regist 71: 30981–31054, 2006
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS: Medicare program; hospital conditions of participation: Requirements for approval and re-approval of transplant centers to perform organ transplants. Final rule. Fed Regist 72: 15197–15280, 2007
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Salkowski N,
    2. Snyder JJ,
    3. Zaun DA,
    4. Leighton T,
    5. Edwards EB,
    6. Israni AK,
    7. Kasiske BL
    : A scientific registry of transplant recipients bayesian method for identifying underperforming transplant programs. Am J Transplant 14: 1310–1317, 2014
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Salkowski N,
    2. Snyder JJ,
    3. Zaun DA,
    4. Leighton T,
    5. Israni AK,
    6. Kasiske BL
    : Bayesian methods for assessing transplant program performance. Am J Transplant 14: 1271–1276, 2014
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Meier-Kriesche HU,
    2. Schold JD,
    3. Srinivas TR,
    4. Reed A,
    5. Kaplan B
    : Kidney transplantation halts cardiovascular disease progression in patients with end-stage renal disease. Am J Transplant 4: 1662–1668, 2004
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Merion RM,
    2. Ashby VB,
    3. Wolfe RA,
    4. Distant DA,
    5. Hulbert-Shearon TE,
    6. Metzger RA,
    7. Ojo AO,
    8. Port FK
    : Deceased-donor characteristics and the survival benefit of kidney transplantation. JAMA 294: 2726–2733, 2005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Schold JD,
    2. Srinivas TR,
    3. Kayler LK,
    4. Meier-Kriesche HU
    : The overlapping risk profile between dialysis patients listed and not listed for renal transplantation. Am J Transplant 8: 58–68, 2008
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Grams ME,
    2. Womer KL,
    3. Ugarte RM,
    4. Desai NM,
    5. Montgomery RA,
    6. Segev DL
    : Listing for expanded criteria donor kidneys in older adults and those with predicted benefit. Am J Transplant 10: 802–809, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Kucirka LM,
    2. Purnell TS,
    3. Segev DL
    : Improving access to kidney transplantation: Referral is not enough. JAMA 314: 565–567, 2015
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Patzer RE,
    2. Pastan SO
    : Measuring the disparity gap: Quality improvement to eliminate health disparities in kidney transplantation. Am J Transplant 13: 247–248, 2013
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Patzer RE,
    2. Pastan SO
    : Kidney transplant access in the Southeast: View from the bottom. Am J Transplant 14: 1499–1505, 2014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Schold JD,
    2. Buccini LD,
    3. Goldfarb DA,
    4. Flechner SM,
    5. Poggio ED,
    6. Sehgal AR
    : Association between kidney transplant center performance and the survival benefit of transplantation versus dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 1773–1780, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Schold JD,
    2. Buccini LD,
    3. Poggio ED,
    4. Flechner SM,
    5. Goldfarb DA
    : Association of candidate removals from the kidney transplant waiting list and center performance oversight. Am J Transplant 16: 1276–1284, 2016
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. White SL,
    2. Zinsser DM,
    3. Paul M,
    4. Levine GN,
    5. Shearon T,
    6. Ashby VB,
    7. Magee JC,
    8. Li Y,
    9. Leichtman AB
    : Patient selection and volume in the era surrounding implementation of Medicare conditions of participation for transplant programs. Health Serv Res 50: 330–350, 2015
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Schold JD,
    2. Buccini LD,
    3. Srinivas TR,
    4. Srinivas RT,
    5. Poggio ED,
    6. Flechner SM,
    7. Soria C,
    8. Segev DL,
    9. Fung J,
    10. Goldfarb DA
    : The association of center performance evaluations and kidney transplant volume in the United States. Am J Transplant 13: 67–75, 2013
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Schold JD,
    2. Harman JS,
    3. Chumbler NR,
    4. Duncan RP,
    5. Meier-Kriesche HU
    : The pivotal impact of center characteristics on survival of candidates listed for deceased donor kidney transplantation. Med Care 47: 146–153, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Finkelstein FO
    : Performance measures in dialysis facilities: What is the goal? Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 156–158, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kliger AS
    : Quality measures for dialysis: Time for a balanced scorecard. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11: 363–368, 2016
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Moss AH,
    2. Davison SN
    : How the ESRD quality incentive program could potentially improve quality of life for patients on dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 10: 888–893, 2015
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Nissenson AR
    : Improving outcomes for ESRD patients: Shifting the quality paradigm. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 430–434, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Axelrod DA,
    2. Schold J
    : Measuring what matters [published online ahead of print September 12, 2016]. Am J Transplant doi:10.1111/ajt.14043
  23. ↵
    1. Schold JD,
    2. Howard RJ
    : Prediction models assessing transplant center performance: Can a little knowledge be a dangerous thing? Am J Transplant 6: 245–246, 2006
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Schold JD,
    2. Phelan MP,
    3. Buccini LD
    : Utility of ecological risk factors for evaluation of transplant center performance. Am J Transplant 17: 617–621, 2017
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Weinhandl ED,
    2. Snyder JJ,
    3. Israni AK,
    4. Kasiske BL
    : Effect of comorbidity adjustment on CMS criteria for kidney transplant center performance. Am J Transplant 9: 506–516, 2009
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Axelrod DA,
    2. Guidinger MK,
    3. Finlayson S,
    4. Schaubel DE,
    5. Goodman DC,
    6. Chobanian M,
    7. Merion RM
    : Rates of solid-organ wait-listing, transplantation, and survival among residents of rural and urban areas. JAMA 299: 202–207, 2008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. O’Hare AM,
    2. Armistead N,
    3. Schrag WL,
    4. Diamond L,
    5. Moss AH
    : Patient-centered care: An opportunity to accomplish the “Three Aims” of the national quality strategy in the Medicare ESRD program. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 9: 2189–2194, 2014
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Tamura MK,
    2. Tan JC,
    3. O’Hare AM
    : Optimizing renal replacement therapy in older adults: A framework for making individualized decisions. Kidney Int 82: 261–269, 2012
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Williams AW,
    2. Dwyer AC,
    3. Eddy AA,
    4. Fink JC,
    5. Jaber BL,
    6. Linas SL,
    7. Michael B,
    8. O’Hare AM,
    9. Schaefer HM,
    10. Shaffer RN,
    11. Trachtman H,
    12. Weiner DE,
    13. Falk AR
    ; American Society of Nephrology Quality, and Patient Safety Task Force: Critical and honest conversations: The evidence behind the “Choosing Wisely” campaign recommendations by the American Society of Nephrology. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 7: 1664–1672, 2012
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Porter ME
    : What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 363: 2477–2481, 2010
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 12 (8)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 12, Issue 8
August 07, 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Building an Ideal Quality Metric for ESRD Health Care Delivery
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Building an Ideal Quality Metric for ESRD Health Care Delivery
Jesse D. Schold, Laura D. Buccini, Michael P. Phelan, Colleen L. Jay, David A. Goldfarb, Emilio D. Poggio, John R. Sedor
CJASN Aug 2017, 12 (8) 1351-1356; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01020117

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Building an Ideal Quality Metric for ESRD Health Care Delivery
Jesse D. Schold, Laura D. Buccini, Michael P. Phelan, Colleen L. Jay, David A. Goldfarb, Emilio D. Poggio, John R. Sedor
CJASN Aug 2017, 12 (8) 1351-1356; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.01020117
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Current Quality Oversight for Patients with ESRD Providers
    • The Problems of Misaligned Incentives
    • Considering an Ideal Quality Metric for ESRD Providers
    • Disclosures
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Commentary on Risks of Living Kidney Donation
  • Commentary on “Demystifying the Benefits and Harms of Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation in CKD”
  • Commentary on Complications of Immunosuppressive Treatments for Glomerulonephritis
Show more Commentary

Cited By...

  • Measuring Quality in Kidney Care: An Evaluation of Existing Quality Metrics and Approach to Facilitating Improvements in Care Delivery
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • quality
  • performance evaluations
  • report cards
  • ESRD
  • transplantation
  • survival
  • Delivery of Health Care
  • kidney failure
  • chronic

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe

© 2021 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire