Abstract
Although the United States possesses one of the most comprehensive transplant registries in the world, nationally representative data on how transplant care is structured and delivered is lacking. Therefore, we surveyed all 208 adult kidney transplant centers in the United States, excluding 37 pediatric and 58 inactive adult centers. Respondents were asked about the characteristics of their kidney transplant programs (25 items), the structure and process of care (18 items), coordination of care (10 items) and the characteristics of transplant physicians and surgeons (9 items).
The survey was completed by directors of 156 transplant centers (75% response). The results demonstrated significant variation between centers in several domains. Sixty-five percent of transplant centers do not have a dedicated transplant pharmacist in outpatient care. Two-thirds of transplant centers do not see the kidney transplant recipients at least monthly during the first year. Less than 30% of centers perform either joint sit-down or walking rounds between nephrology and transplant surgery.
There was significant variation in the structure and process of care in kidney transplantation. This implies variation in the use of resources at the transplant centers. This variation should be studied to determine best practices associated with optimal kidney allograft and patient survival.
Keywords: Transplant, Kidney, Structure of Care, Pharmacist, Providers
Introduction
The United States possesses one of the most comprehensive kidney transplant registries in the world [i.e., Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) and United States Renal Data System (USRDS)]. Despite the availability of such a rich data source, nationally representative data on how transplant care is structured and delivered is lacking. There are 208 adult kidney transplant centers in the United States that performed 79,756 transplants from 2007–2011 (www.srtr.org). As more clinical trials and observational data become available, the care of KTRs has become increasingly complex and expensive. The Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) has proposed guidelines to assist practitioners who care for KTRs. (1) These guidelines are comprehensive and based on the best available evidence.
The KDIGO guidelines are less specific, however, on how this care should be delivered at specific transplant centers, and previous efforts to characterize the practice patterns in the transplant centers were not found in the literature. The variation between transplant centers in approaches to donor and recipient evaluations, in-patient health care delivery, treatment team composition, coordination of care, relationship and communication between medicine and surgery teams, and frequency of follow up are all unknown. Furthermore, these variations in practice affect the cost of care and resources consumed by transplant programs. Through a survey distributed to the surgical and medical directors of all active transplant centers in the United States, we collected comparative data regarding these variations in the structure and delivery of care to KTRs.
Results
The survey was completed by the surgical and/or medical director of 156 transplant centers (75% response rate). The characteristics of transplant centers and the providers completing the survey are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The survey results were divided into the following domains: structure and process of care, frequency of follow-up visits, and coordination of care.
Table 1.
Characteristics of Transplant Centers
| Percentage | p-value | |
|---|---|---|
| Kidney Transplant Program Characteristics From Survey (n=156 centers) | ||
| Organs transplanted: | p<0.001 | |
| Kidney | 100.00 | |
| Pancreas | 66.0 | |
| Liver | 44.9 | |
| Heart | 35.3 | |
| Lung | 23.1 | |
| Other | 5.1 | |
| On-site/on-campus HLA or tissue typing laboratory: | p<0.001 | |
| Yes | 30.1 | |
| No | 69.9 | |
| I don’t know | 0.0 | |
| Tissue typing laboratory accredited by ASHI: | p<0.001 | |
| Yes | 94.9 | |
| No | 0.6 | |
| I don’t know | 3.8 | |
| Percentage of recipients enrolled in a clinical trial: | p<0.001 | |
| None | 23.1 | |
| 1–10% | 27.6 | |
| 11–25% | 26.3 | |
| 26–50% | 14.7 | |
| >50% | 8.3 | |
| Number of FTE clinical research coordinators: | p<0.001 | |
| None | 35.9 | |
| 0.5 FTE | 10.3 | |
| 1.0 FTE | 16.0 | |
| 1.5 FTE | 10.9 | |
| ≥2.0 FTE | 26.3 | |
| ABO-incompatible or crossmatch positive transplants: | p<0.001 | |
| ABO-incompatible | 3.2 | |
| Crossmatch positive | 21.8 | |
| Both | 20.5 | |
| Neither | 54.5 | |
| Participate in PKE and LPE: | p<0.001 | |
| PKE | 29.5 | |
| LPE | 1.9 | |
| Both PKE and LPE | 25.6 | |
| Neither | 41.0 | |
| Laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy: | p<0.001 | |
| Yes | 93.6 | |
| No | 5.8 | |
| Proportion of laparoscopic nephrectomies: | p<0.001 | |
| None | 4.5 | |
| 1–10% | 5.1 | |
| 11–25% | 3.2 | |
| 26–50% | 5.1 | |
| Greater than 50% | 77.6 | |
| Use of electronic medical records: | p<0.001 | |
| Laboratory data | 79.5 | |
| Diagnostic imaging data | 71.8 | |
| Medical history data | 67.9 | |
| Physician order entry | 42.9 | |
| Consultation notes | 59.0 | |
| Evaluate own program’s outcomes regularly: | p<0.001 | |
| Yes | 91.0 | |
| No | 8.3 | |
| Affiliated with a medical school | p<0.001 | |
| Yes | 77.6 | |
| No | 22.4 | |
| Induction therapy used | p<0.001 | |
| Used in essentially all patients | 80.1 | |
| Used on in “high risk” patients | 17.9 | |
| Used hardly ever | 1.3 | |
| First line maintenance for low risk KTRs | p<0.001 | |
| Cyclosporine | 17.3 | |
| Tacrolimus | 91.7 | |
| Mycophenolate mofetil | 95.5 | |
| Azathioprine | 1.3 | |
| Sirolimus | 8.3 | |
| Corticosteroids | 62.8 | |
| Others | 3.8 | |
| First line maintenance for high risk transplant recipients | p<0.001 | |
| Cyclosporine | 7.7 | |
| Tacrolimus | 96.8 | |
| Mycophenolate mofetil | 95.5 | |
| Azathioprine | 0.0 | |
| Sirolimus | 12.8 | |
| Corticosteroids | 81.4 | |
| Others | 1.9 | |
| Formal protocol for post-transplant procedures | ||
| Cardiovascular disease | 53.8 | (p=0.337) |
| CMV infection and disease | 84.6 | (p<0.001) |
| EBV infection and disease | 45.5 | (p=0.296) |
| Influenza | 46.8 | (p=0.519) |
| Polyoma virus nephropathy | 62.2 | (p=0.002) |
| Skin cancer | 46.2 | (p=0.337) |
| Other malignancies | 41.0 | (p=0.025) |
| Steroid-induced osteoporosis | 57.7 | (p=0.055) |
Abbreviations: HLA=human leukocyte antigens; FTE=Full-time equivalent, PKE= paired kidney exchange; LPE= List paired exchange; ASHI= American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics; KTR= kidney transplant recipients
Table 2.
Characteristics of Physicians Completing Survey
| Percentage | p-value | |
|---|---|---|
| Transplant Nephrologists Completing Survey (n=118) | ||
| Years worked at center: | p<0.001 | |
| < 1 year | 0.8 | |
| 1–3 years | 9.3 | |
| 3–5 years | 5.9 | |
| 5–10 years | 21.2 | |
| > 10 years | 62.7 | |
| Mean Number of FTE Nephrologists (± SD): | 4.0 ± 3.7 | |
| Proportion of nephrologists with full time academic appointments | p<0.001 | |
| None | 30.5 | |
| 1–25% | 3.4 | |
| 26–50% | 1.7 | |
| 51–75% | 3.4 | |
| 76–100% | 60.2 | |
| Type of research by nephrologists | p<0.001 | |
| None | 11.9 | |
| Clinical | 56.8 | |
| Basic | 0.0 | |
| Both clinical and basic | 31.4 | |
| Proportion of nephrologists who are principal investigators for federally funded research | p<0.001 | |
| None | 52.5 | |
| 1–25% | 24.6 | |
| 26–50% | 11.9 | |
| 51–75% | 8.5 | |
| 76–100% | 1.7 | |
| Proportion of nephrologists who are principal investigators for industry sponsored research | p=0.004 | |
| None | 24.6 | |
| 1–25% | 30.5 | |
| 26–50% | 18.6 | |
| 51–75% | 13.6 | |
| 76–100% | 11.0 | |
| Proportion of nephrologists who are board certified | p<0.001 | |
| None | 0.0 | |
| 1–25% | 0.0 | |
| 26–50% | 0.0 | |
| 51–75% | 4.2 | |
| 76–100% | 94.9 | |
| Transplant Surgeons Completing Survey (n=106) | ||
| Years worked at center: | p<0.001 | |
| < 1 year | 4.7 | |
| 1–3 years | 11.3 | |
| 3–5 years | 6.6 | |
| 5–10 years | 29.2 | |
| > 10 years | 48.1 | |
| Mean Number of FTE Surgeons: | 3.8 ± 6.6 | |
| Proportion of surgeons with full time academic appointments | p<0.001 | |
| None | 25.5 | |
| 1–25% | 2.8 | |
| 26–50% | 2.8 | |
| 51–75% | 3.8 | |
| 76–100% | 65.1 | |
| Type of research by surgeons | p<0.001 | |
| None | 11.3 | |
| Clinical | 50.9 | |
| Basic | 0.9 | |
| Both clinical and basic | 36.8 | |
| Proportion of surgeons who are principal investigators for federally funded research | p<0.001 | |
| None | 57.5 | |
| 1–25% | 17.9 | |
| 26–50% | 14.2 | |
| 51–75% | 8.5 | |
| 76–100% | 1.9 | |
| Proportion of surgeons who are principal investigators for industry sponsored research | p=0.108 | |
| None | 29.2 | |
| 1–25% | 17.9 | |
| 26–50% | 21.7 | |
| 51–75% | 13.2 | |
| 76–100% | 17.9 | |
| Proportion of surgeons who are board certified | p<0.001 | |
| None | 1.9 | |
| 1–25% | 0.0 | |
| 26–50% | 1.9 | |
| 51–75% | 5.7 | |
| 76–100% | 90.6 |
Abbreviations: FTE=Full-time equivalent
Structure and Process of Care
In this domain, we assessed the availability of ancillary providers. Availability of a dedicated transplant pharmacist varied greatly between programs surveyed. Nearly as many programs had a dedicated transplant pharmacist available in both inpatient and outpatient settings as had no dedicated pharmacist available at all. (Figure 1) In a majority of centers, nephrology fellows and general surgery residents provided medical care to KTRs. Internal medicine residents were involved in 48.1% of centers. (Table 3) The composition of the outpatient care team differed from the inpatient team as the presence of general surgery residents markedly decreased from 71.8% in the inpatient setting to 25.0% in the outpatient setting. In contrast, nephrology fellows were well-represented on both outpatient and inpatient care teams at 59.0% and 60.3%, respectively. Physician extenders [Certified Nurse Practitioner (CNPs) and Physician Assistants (PAs)] maintained a role in approximately two-thirds of all care teams in both inpatient and outpatient settings.
Figure 1.
Differences in use of pharmacist and use of joint medical and surgical rounds
Table 3.
Structure and Process of Care and Frequency of Outpatient Follow-up Visits
| Percentage | p-value | |
|---|---|---|
| Recipients stay as inpatients in: | p<0.001 | |
| Unit dedicated to transplants | 24.4 | |
| Unit only with patients with kidney-related disorders | 31.4 | |
| Unit other patients with non-kidney-related disorders | 35.9 | |
| Various units | 5.1 | |
| Other | 3.2 | |
| Dedicated physicians who regularly consult: | p<0.001 | |
| None | 23.7 | |
| Cardiologist | 52.6 | |
| Infectious diseases | 62.2 | |
| Psychiatry | 34.0 | |
| Endocrinology | 31.4 | |
| Other | 15.4 | |
| Health care professionals on in-patient transplant service: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgery fellows | 29.5 | |
| Nephrology fellows | 60.3 | |
| General surgery residents | 71.8 | |
| Urology residents | 24.4 | |
| Internal medicine residents | 48.1 | |
| Physician assistants | 28.2 | |
| Nurse practitioners | 35.9 | |
| Other | 22.4 | |
| Health care professionals on out-patient transplant service: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgery fellows | 19.9 | |
| Nephrology fellows | 59.0 | |
| General surgery residents | 25.0 | |
| Urology residents | 7.7 | |
| Internal medicine residents | 10.9 | |
| Physician assistants | 21.8 | |
| Nurse practitioners | 40.4 | |
| Other | 37.8 | |
| Primary attending physician in ICU: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgeon | 39.1 | |
| Transplant nephrologist | 19.9 | |
| Intensivist | 31.4 | |
| Other | 9.6 | |
| Transplant fellowship offered: | p<0.001 | |
| Yes | 69.2 | |
| No | 30.8 | |
| Number of personnel available: | ||
| Mean number of full-time equivalent transplant nephrologist available | 4.0 ± 3.7 | |
| Mean number of full-time equivalent transplant surgeons available | 3.8 ± 6.6 | |
| Time when referred back to general nephrologist post-transplant: | p<0.001 | |
| Not referred back | 13.5 | |
| 0–3 months | 21.8 | |
| 4–6 months | 42.9 | |
| 7–12 months | 12.8 | |
| Other | 9.0 | |
| Frequency of follow-up during the first year post-transplant: | p<0.001 | |
| Not seen unless problems arise | 1.9 | |
| At least every 1 month | 34.6 | |
| At least every 3 months | 40.4 | |
| At least every 6 months | 14.7 | |
| Other | 8.3 | |
| Frequency of follow-up after the first year post-transplant: | p<0.001 | |
| Not seen unless problems arise | 3.2 | |
| At least every 3 months | 28.2 | |
| At least every 6 months | 24.4 | |
| At least every 12 months | 35.9 | |
| Other | 8.3 | |
| Initial contact after-hours: | p<0.001 | |
| Nursing staff | 51.9 | |
| Physician assistant or nurse practitioner | 1.3 | |
| Intern and/or resident | 5.1 | |
| Transplant fellow (medical or surgical) | 10.9 | |
| Attending transplant physician or surgeon | 25.0 | |
| Other | 5.8 |
There was significant variation in both the use of various types of hospital units and primary attending physicians for inpatient care. KTRs were fairly evenly distributed between nursing units that housed other transplant patients, other kidney (but non-transplant) patients, as well as on units that housed patients who did not have kidney-related disorders. The primary attending physician for a recent kidney transplant recipient who required intensive care unit (ICU) care was most frequently a transplant surgeon (39.1%). Slightly less frequently, the ICU attending physician was a surgical or medicine-trained intensivist (31.4%) or a transplant nephrologist (19.9%). When the need arose, regular consultations for non-renal medical issues in recipients were performed in > 50% of transplant centers (typically by cardiologists and infectious disease specialists). (Table 3)
Frequency of follow-up visits
Variation in frequency of follow-up during the first and subsequent years was reported. (Table 3) During the first year post-transplant, patients were most frequently seen at least every 3 months but a near equal percentage were seen as frequently as every month. Follow-up after the first year continued to vary with nearly equal percentage of centers reporting follow-up visit frequency to be every 3, 6, or 12 months. While timing of referral of stable patients back to their primary nephrologists varied from 0–12 months among centers studied, patients were most frequently referred back between 4–6 months after transplant. Initial contact for after-hours questions or emergencies was primarily directed to nursing staff at the transplant centers (51.9%).
Coordination of Care
Both medical and surgical teams performed pre-transplant evaluations of donors and recipients in a majority of centers. (Table 4) During the admission for the transplant, transplant surgery was the primary admitting team in a majority of centers (67.9%), followed by joint surgery/nephrology transplant teams (18.6%), and quite infrequently (9.6%) nephrology teams. When readmission within the first 3 months was required, surgical teams were most frequently the admitting team (45.5%). After 3 months, transplant nephrology was the admitting team in most centers. The primary outpatient follow up team was most frequently transplant nephrology, both in the initial 3 months and after 3 months post-transplant. The overall working relationship between medical and surgical teams was characterized as either “very good” or “excellent’ in total of 84% of centers. The prevalence of combined joint sit-down rounds with medical and surgical teams varied greatly between centers. (Figure 1)
Table 4.
Coordination of Care
| Percentage | p-value | |
|---|---|---|
| Reporting structure for clinical issues: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant medicine/nephrology reports to transplant surgery | 36.5 | |
| Transplant surgery reports to transplant medicine/nephrology | 12.2 | |
| Other | 48.7 | |
| Financial structure of transplant center: | p<0.001 | |
| All resources go into the group practice under the same budget | 25.0 | |
| Transplant surgery reports to transplant medicine/nephrology | 51.9 | |
| Other | 21.2 | |
| Recipient evaluations done by: | p<0.001 | |
| Medical transplant team | 11.5 | |
| Surgical transplant team | 15.4 | |
| Both medical and surgical transplant teams | 73.1 | |
| Other | 0.0 | |
| Donor evaluations done by: | p<0.001 | |
| Medical transplant team | 23.1 | |
| Surgical transplant team | 6.4 | |
| Both medical and surgical transplant teams | 67.3 | |
| Other | 3.2 | |
| Admitting service for transplant surgery: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgery | 67.9 | |
| Transplant nephrology | 9.6 | |
| Urology | 2.6 | |
| Joint transplant surgery/nephrology | 18.6 | |
| General surgery | 0.0 | |
| Other | 1.3 | |
| Admitting service ≤3 months post-transplant: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgery | 45.5 | |
| Transplant nephrology | 34.0 | |
| Urology | 2.6 | |
| Joint transplant surgery/nephrology | 14.7 | |
| General surgery | 0.0 | |
| Other | 3.2 | |
| Admitting service >3 months post-transplant: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgery | 18.6 | |
| Transplant nephrology | 57.7 | |
| Urology | 2.6 | |
| Joint transplant surgery/nephrology | 15.4 | |
| General surgery | 0.0 | |
| Other | 5.8 | |
| Out-patient team ≤3 months post-transplant: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgery | 23.1 | |
| Transplant nephrology | 40.4 | |
| Urology | 9.6 | |
| Joint transplant surgery/nephrology | 26.9 | |
| General surgery | 0.0 | |
| Other | 0.0 | |
| Out-patient team >3 months post-transplant: | p<0.001 | |
| Transplant surgery | 6.4 | |
| Transplant nephrology | 63.5 | |
| Urology | 6.4 | |
| Joint transplant surgery/nephrology | 22.4 | |
| General surgery | 0.0 | |
| Other | 1.3 | |
| Medical and surgical regular joint walking rounds: | p=0.23 | |
| Always | 25.0 | |
| Frequently | 19.9 | |
| Occasionally | 31.4 | |
| Never | 23.7 | |
| Overall working relationship between medical and surgical teams: | p<0.001 | |
| Excellent | 60.9 | |
| Very good | 23.1 | |
| Good | 13.5 | |
| Fair | 1.9 | |
| Poor | 0.6 |
Subgroup analysis
The following characteristics were more frequently observed in transplant centers affiliated with a medical school compared to centers not affiliated: transplants other solid organs in addition to kidneys [pancreas (p=0.038), liver (p=0.01), heart (p=0.001), and lung (p=0.005)], onsite Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) laboratory (p<0.001), patients are enrolled in a formal research protocol (p=0.037), center offers ABO-incompatible or cross-match positive transplants (p=0.009), more nephrologists and transplant surgeons have full-time academic appointments (p<0.001), more nephrologists and transplant surgeons are involved in clinical and basic research (p=0.001), more nephrologists are principal investigators (p=0.011), availability of specialty consult physicians dedicated to transplant recipients (p=0.011), more often an intensivist was the primary MD in the ICU for transplant recipients (p<0.001), and the primary physician contact after hours was not the attending surgeon or nephrologist (p=0.043). (Supplemental Table 1)
The following factors were more likely to be associated with increased volume of transplants performed: program transplants other solid organs in addition to kidneys (p=0.008), patients enrolled in a formal research protocol (p=0.006), use of EMR (p=0.008), availability of dedicated transplant pharmacist (p=0.024), and presence of a transplant nephrology fellowship (p<0.001). (Supplemental Table 2)
The following factors were more likely to be associated with multi-organ transplant centers compared to kidney-alone transplant centers: presence of an HLA or tissue typing laboratory (p=0.001), formal research protocols (p<0.001), full-time research coordinators (p=0.001), offer ABO-incompatible or cross-match positive transplants (p=0.019), offer laparoscopic living donor nephrectomies (p=0.002), be affiliated with a medical school (p=0.022), more nephrology (p<0.001) and surgery (p<0.001) involvement in clinical and basic research, more FTE surgeons (p=0.001), and more surgeons as principal investigators in industry sponsored basic science or clinical research (p<0.001). (Supplemental Table 3)
The following factors were different across Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) regions: affiliation with a medical school (p=0.003), participation in the paired kidney exchange (PKE) (p<0.001), formal protocol for post-transplant BK screening (p=0.005), use of corticosteroids (p=0.007) and sirolimus (p=0.017) as first-line, maintenance immunosuppression regimen for low-risk patients, and use of tacrolimus for high risk patients (p=0.014). (Supplemental Table 4)
Centers with financial structure organized with all resources going through departmental structures compared to resources going to a group (transplant) practice under the same budget, were more likely to have: an onsite HLA or tissue typing laboratory (p<0.001), affiliation with a medical school (p<0.001), higher number of full-time equivalent (FTE) nephrologists (p=0.002), more nephrologists with full-time academic appointments (p=0.001) and the primary physician contact after hours was not the attending surgeon or nephrologist (p=0.02). (Supplemental Table 5)
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first study to collect nationally representative data on how transplant care is structured and delivered and similar data is not available for other countries. The major finding of this survey was the significant variation between different transplant centers in the domains of structure and processes of care, frequency of follow-up visits, and coordination of care. Two-thirds of kidney transplant centers do not use clinical pharmacists dedicated to the outpatient setting (Figure 1). Only two-thirds of kidney transplant centers have incorporated physician extenders in their treatment teams (Table 3). Two-thirds of kidney transplant centers do not see their KTRs at least monthly during the first year post-transplant (Table 3).
Despite published literature including several randomized control trials (2–4) to support the use of clinical pharmacists in the care of KTRs to minimize side effects, decrease cost, and improve adherence to immunosuppressive medications, many centers have not incorporated this vital component to their treatment team. A recent prospective, observational study demonstrated significant decreases in errors upon discharge following transplantation when the medication regimen was reviewed by a transplant pharmacist.(5) Our survey found that 35% of programs used pharmacists in both inpatient and outpatient areas and 24% used them only for the inpatient setting. Sixty five percent of programs do not use pharmacists in the outpatient setting, where the utility has been demonstrated and where the patients are at highest risk to demonstrate non-adherence.
Numerous studies have correlated non-adherence to prescribed treatment plans with early and late allograft rejection and graft loss.(6–10) In attempts to prevent this rejection and graft loss, the KDIGO guidelines recommended providing all KTRs and family members with education about the importance of medical adherence, implement preventive measures to minimize non-adherence, and increase screening for non-adherence.(11) Furthermore, KDIGO has recommended a “team approach” based on literature that has shown positive outcomes associated with the use of multidisciplinary teams that combine educational, behavioral, and social support systems.(12, 13) Risk factors for non-adherence such as lack of adequate follow-up with transplant specialists, multiple adverse effects from medications, and complex drug regimens have been previously identified. (14, 15)
It has also been shown by Weng et al that non-adherence varies between transplant centers.(16) The present study shows that there is an opportunity to increase the utilization of physician extenders to assist in improving outcomes. It is reasonable to speculate that physician extenders may fulfill the role of educating and monitoring patients in the setting where physicians may be overextended or unavailable.
In attempts to improve patient and medical provider satisfaction, outcomes, and overall care, a multidisciplinary approach has been tried in many areas of medicine including heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and others.(17–22) These studies have shown positive outcomes in mortality, metabolic and blood pressure control, readmission rates, and medication optimization.(18–20, 22) Such issues have not been adequately studied in kidney transplant patients. Our study is the first to describe the variable use of pharmacists, PAs, and CNPs, as members of multidisciplinary teams in this setting. To the best of our knowledge, only one previous study in 2004 addressed use of multidisciplinary teams in kidney transplant centers and focused on the integration of clinical pharmacists.(23) With data from 36 centers, this study found that 73% of kidney transplant centers had pharmacists. Of these centers, pharmacists reported dedicating 43% of their time to inpatient care and only 15% to outpatient care. This finding is consistent with our data that suggests underutilization of clinical pharmacists in the outpatient care of KTRs.
Considering the prior or underlying disease and comorbidities of the patient, the complexity and hazards of ongoing immunosuppression, the risk of acute rejection, and the need for optimized general health care, adequate follow up of KTRs is essential. The 2000 AST recommendations for outpatient surveillance of KTRs recommend routine post-transplant visits 2–3 times per week during the first 30 days, every 1–3 weeks in months 1–3, expanded to every 4–8 weeks during months 4–12, and ultimately every 2–4 months thereafter. These visits may be for laboratory tests only or may include contact with transplant nurse coordinators and/or physicians.(24) The 2009 KDIGO guidelines do not make specific recommendations on the frequency and timing of outpatient visits.(25) Previous work has demonstrated significant variation in the frequency of outpatient visits between patients, centers, and regions of the country.(26) Lower kidney transplant survival is associated with a lower frequency of nephrology visits.(27) The survey data shows that two-thirds of kidney transplant centers do not see their KTRs at least monthly during the first year post-transplant.
It is reassuring that the working relationship between transplant surgery and nephrology teams is “very good” or “excellent” in total of 84% of centers (Table 4). At a time when the recently transplanted kidney patient is at high risk for both medical and surgical complications, they are unfortunately shifting from surgical to medical services. For example, transplant surgery is the admitting service for 67.9% of KTRs at the time of transplantation and for 45.5% of KTRs during the first three months post-transplant (Table 4). However at 3 months post-transplant, the admitting service becomes most frequently transplant nephrology (57.7%) (Table 4). A similar shift from transplant surgery to nephrology is also seen in the outpatient setting. This poses a unique challenge for patient care, and it is clear that collaboration and communication is vital. An area to increase communication could be greater utilization of joint sit-down or walking rounds between the services. However, we found that only 29.5% of centers regularly conducted sit-down rounds and 25.0% of centers regularly did joint walking rounds. (Figure 1) The survey did not measure the proximity of surgery and nephrology offices and clinics. It is possible that close physical proximity may reduce the need for formal interactions. Sub-group analysis of the survey responses demonstrated several predictable trends. Programs affiliated with a medical school were more often involved in research, had more academic affiliations, and transplanted a greater variety of organs. Overall, minimal variation in delivery of care was observed across OPTN regions. Centers that distribute resources through department structures had more academic nephrologists. Not surprisingly, multi-organ transplant centers demonstrated more involvement in research. As predicted, high volume centers more often also transplanted organs other than kidneys, had available transplant pharmacists and supported a transplant nephrology fellowship.
Our study has several limitations. At this time, it is not known if the centers that utilized pharmacists and mid-level providers such as physician extenders had better post-transplant outcomes or whether satisfactory professional relationships between nephrologist and surgeons actually were associated with better post-transplant outcomes. Our data does however show that the previously described differences in both treatment adherence and long-term outcomes (16) may in part be related to significant differences in the structure and coordination of care. Randomized control trials would be necessary to determine if a specific intervention, such as joint rounding between surgeons and nephrologists or increased utilization of mid-level providers, does indeed improve outcomes for KTRs. However it is likely that the volume of transplants and number of patients per nephrologist and surgeon may make some of the interventions logistically difficult or unnecessary to use. With regards to the frequency of outpatient visits, our survey only covered visits to the transplant center and did not quantify frequency of visits to the referring nephrologist or primary care physicians. However, as previous work has shown, follow up of recently transplanted patients by primary care physicians was quite infrequent (26), thus we can assume these primary care visits represent a minority of total outpatient visits. An additional limitation is that not all centers who responded provided completed surveys from both the medical and surgical directors. Since not all transplant physicians and surgeons were surveyed at each center, the responses reflect the opinions of only the transplant clinicians who actually filled out the survey. The nature of a particular transplant program, academic versus private, and overall budget may affect the ability of that center to support ancillary staff, including transplant-specific pharmacists. This survey did not collect data on the annual budgets of the respective programs.
In conclusion, this study determined that significant variation occurs in the structure of care, frequency of follow up, and coordination of care between kidney transplant centers. These variations may partially explain the disparate long-term allograft outcomes that have been observed among transplant centers and between some types of KTRs (28–30). Additional research, in the form of prospective observational cohort studies and randomized control trials of interventions to increase the integration of mid-level providers or improve coordination of care between nephrologists and surgeons, are needed to determine if changes in these areas will lead to improvements in long-term allograft and patient outcomes.
Methods
Study Design and Population
This observational cross-sectional study sought to acquire information from all active, adult, OPTN-affiliated kidney transplant programs in the United States. In total, 208 kidney transplant centers fulfilled the criteria for study inclusion at the time of first mailing (March 1, 2007). A partial contact list of medical and surgical directors of U.S. kidney transplant programs was acquired from the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS). This list was updated using information from the internet and directly contacting eligible kidney transplant programs by telephone.
Survey Development and Content
The survey was developed by S.J.K. and N.R.P., in consultation with a transplant physician (HR) and transplant surgeon (LER) at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Columbia University Medical Center, respectively. A number of the questionnaire items were adapted from a survey instrument that was developed by Loberiza et al.(31) Our questionnaire had four sections (see Appendix for the full questionnaire).
Survey Administration
A letter describing the study was sent one week in advance of the first survey mailing to the medical and surgical directors of all eligible U.S. adult kidney transplant programs. Respondents were given the option of completing the self-administered questionnaire via paper or on-line formats. The total time from the first survey mailing to the end of the study period which included several reminders and subsequent re-sending of surveys, was 24 weeks.
Analytical Methods
Frequency of responses was analyzed by t-test for continuous variables and by chi-square test (and fisher’s exact test if there are cells with less than five responses) for categorical variables. All analyses were conducted in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, North Carolina) and STATA 12 (Statacorp, College Station, Texas). Responses from medical directors were used first and supplemented with surgical director responses if the medical director had not responded.
Supplementary Material
Abbreviations
- CNP
Certified Nurse Practitioner
- HLA
Human Leukocyte Antigen
- ICU
Intensive Care Unit
- KDIGO
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes
- KTR
Kidney Transplant Recipient
- OPTN
Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network
- PKE
Paired Kidney Exchange
- PA
Physician Assistant
- SRTR
Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients
- UNOS
United Network of Organ Sharing
- USRDS
United States Renal Data System
- ASHI
American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics
References
- 1.KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2009 Nov;9(Suppl 3):S1–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02834.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Chisholm MA, Mulloy LL, Jagadeesan M, DiPiro JT. Impact of clinical pharmacy services on renal transplant patients’ compliance with immunosuppressive medications. Clinical transplantation. 2001;15(5):330–6. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0012.2001.150505.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Chisholm MA. Enhancing transplant patients’ adherence to medication therapy. Clinical transplantation. 2002;16(1):30–8. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0012.2002.00104.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C. A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clinical therapeutics. 2001;23(8):1296–310. doi: 10.1016/s0149-2918(01)80109-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Musgrave CR, Pilch NA, Taber DJ, Meadows HB, McGillicuddy JW, Chavin KD, et al. Improving transplant patient safety through pharmacist discharge medication reconciliation. American Journal of Transplantation. 2013;13:796–801. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Vlaminck H, Maes B, Evers G, Verbeke G, Lerut E, Van Damme B, et al. Prospective study on late consequences of subclinical non-compliance with immunosuppressive therapy in renal transplant patients. Am J Transplant. 2004 Sep;4(9):1509–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00537.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Butler JA, Roderick P, Mullee M, Mason JC, Peveler RC. Frequency and impact of nonadherence to immunosuppressants after renal transplantation: a systematic review. Transplantation. 2004;77(5):769. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000110408.83054.88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Yen EF, Hardinger K, Brennan DC, Woodward RS, Desai NM, Crippin JS, et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Extending Medicare Coverage of Immunosuppressive Medications to the Life of a Kidney Transplant. American Journal of Transplantation. 2004;4(10):1703–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00565.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gaston R, Hudson S, Ward M, Jones P, Macon R, editors. Late renal allograft loss: noncompliance masquerading as chronic rejection. 1999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Jarzembowski T, John E, Panaro F, Heiliczer J, Kraft K, Bogetti D, et al. Impact of non-compliance on outcome after pediatric kidney transplantation: An analysis in racial subgroups. Pediatr Transplant. 2004;8(4):367–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3046.2004.00158.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes Transplant Work G. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am J Transplant. 2009;9(Suppl 3):S1–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2009.02834.x. (Journal Article) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Peterson AM, Takiya L, Finley R. Meta-analysis of trials of interventions to improve medication adherence. American Journal of Health System Pharmacy. 2003;60(7):657–65. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/60.7.657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Roter DL, Hall JA, Merisca R, Nordstrom B, Cretin D, Svarstad B. Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient compliance: a meta-analysis. Med Care. 1998;36(8):1138. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199808000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Fine R, Becker Y, De Geest S, Eisen H, Ettenger R, Evans R, et al. Nonadherence consensus conference summary report. American Journal of Transplantation. 2009;9(1):35–41. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-6143.2008.02495.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Morrissey PE, Flynn ML, Lin S. Medication noncompliance and its implications in transplant recipients. Drugs. 2007;67(10):1463–81. doi: 10.2165/00003495-200767100-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Weng LC, Dai YT, Huang HL, Chiang YJ. Self-efficacy, self care behaviours and quality of life of kidney transplant recipients. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2010;66(4):828–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05243.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Curtis BM, Ravani P, Malberti F, Kennett F, Taylor PA, Djurdjev O, et al. The short- and long-term impact of multi-disciplinary clinics in addition to standard nephrology care on patient outcomes. Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association. 2005 Jan;20(1):147–54. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfh585. Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hemmelgarn BR, Manns BJ, Zhang J, Tonelli M, Klarenbach S, Walsh M, et al. Association between multidisciplinary care and survival for elderly patients with chronic kidney disease. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. 2007;18(3):993–9. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2006080860. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ravani P, Marinangeli G, Tancredi M, Malberti F. Multidisciplinary chronic kidney disease management improves survival on dialysis. Journal of nephrology. 2003;16(6):870. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Thanamayooran S, Rose C, Hirsch DJ. Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary kidney disease clinic in achieving treatment guideline targets. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation. 2005;20(11):2385. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfi024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Goldstein M, Yassa T, Dacouris N, McFarlane P. Multidisciplinary predialysis care and morbidity and mortality of patients on dialysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2004 Oct;44(4):706–14. Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gattis WA, Hasselblad V, Whellan DJ, O’Connor CM. Reduction in Heart Failure Events by the Addition of a Clinical Pharmacist to the Heart Failure Management Team: Results of the Pharmacist in Heart Failure Assessment Recommendation and Monitoring (PHARM) Study. Archives of internal medicine 1999. 1999 Sep 13;159(16):1939–45. doi: 10.1001/archinte.159.16.1939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Martin JE, Zavala EY. The expanding role of the transplant pharmacist in the multidisciplinary practice of transplantation. Clinical transplantation. 2004;18 (Suppl 12):50–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0012.2004.00218.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Kasiske BL, Vazquez MA, Harmon WE, Brown RS, Danovitch GM, Gaston RS, et al. Recommendations for the outpatient surveillance of renal transplant recipients. American Society of Transplantation. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000 Oct;11(Suppl 15):S1–86. Guideline Practice Guideline Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov’t. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Kasiske BL, Zeier MG, Chapman JR, Craig JC, Ekberg H, Garvey CA, et al. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients: a summary. Kidney Int. 2009;77(4):299–311. doi: 10.1038/ki.2009.377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Israni A, Snyder J, Skeans M, Tuomari A, Maclean J, Kasiske B. Who Is Caring for Kidney Transplant Patients? Variation by Region, Transplant Center, and Patient Characteristics. American journal of nephrology. 2009;30(5):430–9. doi: 10.1159/000239220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Goldade K, Sidhwani S, Patel S, Brendt L, Vigliaturo J, Kasiske B, et al. Kidney Transplant Patients’ Perceptions, Beliefs, and Barriers Related to Regular Nephrology Outpatient Visits. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. 2010 doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2010.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Russell C. Culturally responsive interventions to enhance immunosuppressive medication adherence in older African American kidney trasnplant recipients. Progress in Transplantation. 2006;16(3):187–96. doi: 10.1177/152692480601600302. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Schaeffner E, Mehta J, Winkelmayer W. Educational Level as a Determinant of Access to and Outcomes After Kidney Transplantation in the United States. Am J of Kidney Diseases. 2008;151(5):811–18. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.01.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Weng F, Israni A, Joffe M, Hoy T, Gaughan C, Newman M, et al. Race and electronically-measured adherence to immunosuppressive medications after deceased donor renal transplantation. Journal of American Society of Nephrology. 2005;16(6):1839–48. doi: 10.1681/ASN.2004121059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Loberiza FR, Zhang M-J, Lee SJ, Klein JP, LeMaistre CF, Serna DS, et al. Association of transplant center and physician factors on mortality after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the United States. Blood 2005. 2005 Apr 1;105(7):2979–87. doi: 10.1182/blood-2004-10-3863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.