Reported effects of the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients 5-tier rating system on US transplant centers: results of a national survey

Sarah E. Van Pilsum Rasmussen, Alvin G. Thomas, Jacqueline Garonzik, Macey Henderson, Sarah S. Stith, Dorry Segev, Lauren Nicholas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle


In the United States, the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) provides publicly available quality report cards. These reports have historically rated transplant programs using a 3-tier system. In 2016, the SRTR temporarily transitioned to a 5-tier system, which classified more programs as under-performing. As part of a larger survey about transplant quality metrics, we surveyed members of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons and American Society of Transplantation (N = 280 respondents) on transplant center experiences with patient and payer responses to the 5-tier SRTR ratings. Over half of respondents (n = 137, 52.1%) reported ≥1 negative effect of the new 5-tier ranking system, including losing patients, losing insurers, increased concern among patients, and increased concern among referring providers. Few respondents (n = 35, 13.7%) reported any positive effects of the 5-tier ranking system. Lower SRTR-reported scores on the 5-tier scale were associated with increased risk of reporting at least one negative effect in a logistic model (P < 0.01). The change to a more granular rating system provoked an immediate response in the transplant community that may have long-term implications for transplant hospital finances and patient options for transplantation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1135-1143
Number of pages9
JournalTransplant International
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018



  • quality of care/care delivery
  • Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Transplantation

Cite this