Variability in Organ Procurement Organization Performance by Individual Hospital in the United States

• Published in: JAMA surgery Vol. 158; no. 4; pp. 404 - 409
• Main Authors: Johnson, Wali, Kraft, Kathryn, Chotai, Pranit, Lynch, Raymond, Dittus, Robert S, Goldberg, David, Ye, Fei, Doby, Brianna, Schaubel, Douglas E, Shah, Malay B, Karp, Seth J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Medical Association 01.04.2023
• Subjects: Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Online First; Organ Transplantation; Original Investigation; Retrospective Studies; Tissue and Organ Procurement; Tissue Donors; United States; United States
• ISSN: 2168-6254; 2168-6262
• DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2022.7853

IMPORTANCE: Availability of organs inadequately addresses the need of patients waiting for a transplant. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the true number of donor patients in the United States and identify inefficiencies in the donation process as a way to guide system improvement. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was performed of organ donation across 13 different hospitals in 2 donor service areas covered by 2 organ procurement organizations (OPOs) in 2017 and 2018 to compare donor potential to actual donors. More than 2000 complete medical records for decedents were reviewed as a sample of nearly 9000 deaths. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018. EXPOSURE: Deaths of causes consistent with donation according to medical record review, ventilated patient referrals, center acceptance practices, and actual deceased donors. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Potential donors by medical record review vs actual donors and OPO performance at specific hospitals. RESULTS: Compared with 242 actual donors, 931 potential donors were identified at these hospitals. This suggests a deceased donor potential of 3.85 times (95% CI, 4.23-5.32) the actual number of donors recovered. There was a surprisingly wide variability in conversion of potential donor patients into actual donors among the hospitals studied, from 0% to 51.0%. One OPO recovered 18.8% of the potential donors, whereas the second recovered 48.2%. The performance of the OPOs was moderately related to referrals of ventilated patients and not related to center acceptance practices. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of hospitals served by 2 OPOs, wide variation was found in the performance of the OPOs, especially at individual hospitals. Addressing this opportunity could greatly increase the organ supply, affirming the importance of recent efforts from the federal government to increase OPO accountability and transparency.