Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Apr;55(4):681-694.
doi: 10.1038/s41409-019-0718-7. Epub 2019 Oct 21.

Benchmarking of survival outcomes following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of existing processes and the introduction of an international system from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT and EBMT (JACIE)

Affiliations
Review

Benchmarking of survival outcomes following haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A review of existing processes and the introduction of an international system from the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) and the Joint Accreditation Committee of ISCT and EBMT (JACIE)

John A Snowden et al. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2020 Apr.

Erratum in

Abstract

In many healthcare settings, benchmarking for complex procedures has become a mandatory requirement by competent authorities, regulators, payers and patients to assure clinical performance, cost-effectiveness and safe care of patients. In several countries inside and outside Europe, benchmarking systems have been established for haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT), but access is not universal. As benchmarking is now integrated into the FACT-JACIE standards, the EBMT and JACIE established a Clinical Outcomes Group (COG) to develop and introduce a universal system accessible across EBMT members. Established systems from seven European countries (United Kingdom, Italy, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland), USA and Australia were appraised, revealing similarities in process, but wide variations in selection criteria and statistical methods. In tandem, the COG developed the first phase of a bespoke risk-adapted international benchmarking model for one-year survival following allogeneic and autologous HSCT based on current capabilities within the EBMT registry core dataset. Data completeness, which has a critical impact on validity of centre comparisons, is also assessed. Ongoing development will include further scientific validation of the model, incorporation of further variables (when appropriate) alongside implementation of systems for clinically meaningful interpretation and governance aiming to maximise acceptance to centres, clinicians, payers and patients across EBMT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

JAS declares speaker fees at educational events supported by Sanofi, Janssen, Jazz, Mallinckrodt and Gilead, and is a member of a trial IDMC for Kiadis Pharma. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Timeline for projected development of clinical outcomes benchmarking process and scoping of established benchmarking systems
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Funnel plot for 1-year mortality following allogeneic transplantation comparing observed over expected mortality adjusted for case mix and centre follow-up. Results are highly affected by quality of follow-up over the period. *Adjusted for case mix and centre follow up
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Funnel plot for 1-year loss to follow-up for allogeneic transplants. *Adjusted for patient and centre-specific mortality
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Funnel plot for 1-year mortality following autologous transplantation comparing observed over expected mortality adjusted for case mix and centre follow-up. Results are highly affected by quality of follow-up over the period. *Adjusted for case mix and centre follow up
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Funnel plot for 1-year loss to follow-up for autologous transplants. *Adjusted for patient and centre-specific mortality

References

    1. Wind A, van Harten WH. Benchmarking specialty hospitals, a scoping review on theory and practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:245. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2154-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wind A, Gonçalves FR, Marosi E, da Pieve L, Groza M, Asioli M, et al. Benchmarking cancer centers: from care pathways to integrated practice units. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16:1075–83. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2018.7035. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Henneman D, Dekker JWT, Wouters MWJM, Fiocco M, Tollenaar RAEM. Benchmarking clinical outcomes in elective colorectal cancer surgery: The interplay between institutional reoperation- and mortality rates. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:1429–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.08.473. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stortz JA, Mira JC, Raymond SL, Loftus TJ, Ozrazgat-Baslanti T, Wang Z, et al. Benchmarking clinical outcomes and the immunocatabolic phenotype of chronic critical illness after sepsis in surgical intensive care unit patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;84:342–9. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001758. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Choi D, Crockard HA. How and why should we benchmark clinical outcomes and quality of life for surgery in spinal metastases? Br J Neurosurg. 2009;23:3–4. doi: 10.1080/02688690802546872. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types