Do Patient Assessments of Hospital Quality Correlate With Kidney Transplantation Surgical Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Currently, transplant patients have limited metrics available to understand transplant center quality. Graft and patient survival do not capture the patient experience, and patients may use more general consumer assessments of hospital care to help select transplant centers. We evaluated whether consumer assessments of hospital quality correlate with short- and long-term kidney transplant center performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CMS uses the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) to publicly report patients' perspectives on hospital care. We merged 2012 SRTR kidney transplant (n = 200 centers), HCAHPS and American Hospital Association survey data. Center performance was determined by variation in observed-to-expected (O/E) ratios for 1-month and 1-year graft failure. We used multivariate regression to determine whether HCAHPS measures correlate with center performance, after risk-adjusting for structural characteristics and volume. RESULTS: Center-specific graft failure varied significantly (30 day O/E range: 0-4.1). At 30 days, compared to average centers, cleanliness (OR = 1.26, P = .001), patient recommendation (OR = 1.18, P = .005), and high overall ratings (OR = 1.11, P = .036) predicted high performance. Poor nursing-patient communication (OR = 0.70, P = .030), lower cleanliness (OR = 0.67, P < .001), poor overall ratings (OR = 0.79, P = .038), and no recommendation (OR = 0.68, P = .019) correlated with average/low performance. There was no significant correlation between HCAHPS measures and 1-year outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The association between hospital consumer assessments of hospital care and center performance after kidney transplantation is limited. More specific metrics oriented to capturing transplant patient perspectives may be valuable in further defining transplant quality.

Decreased core muscle size is associated with worse patient survival following esophagectomy for cancer.

Preoperative risk assessment, particularly for patient frailty, remains largely subjective. This study evaluated the relationship between core muscle size and patient outcomes following esophagectomy for malignancy. Using preoperative computed tomography scans in 230 subjects who had undergone transhiatal esophagectomy for cancer between 2001 and 2010, lean psoas area (LPA), measured at the fourth lumbar vertebra, was determined. Cox proportional hazards regression was employed to analyze overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) adjusted for age, gender, and stage, and the Akaike information criterion was used to determine each covariate contribution to OS and DFS. Univariate analysis demonstrated that increasing LPA correlated with both OS (P = 0.017) and DFS (P = 0.038). In multivariate analysis controlling for patient and tumor characteristics, LPA correlated with OS and DFS in patients who had not received neoadjuvant treatment (n = 64), with higher LPA associated with improved OS and DFS. Moreover, LPA was of equivalent, or slightly higher importance than pathologic stage. These measures were not predictive among patients (n = 166) receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Core muscle size appears to be an independent predictor of both OS and DFS, as significant as tumor stage, in patients following transhiatal esophagectomy. Changes in muscle mass related to preoperative treatment may confound this effect. Assessment of core muscle size may provide an additional objective measure for risk stratification prior to undergoing esophagectomy.