Productivity among organ procurement organizations varies widely in the US, and the pressure to determine critical success factors increases as the organ pool shrinks and managed care expands. This study compared three successful organ procurement organizations, identified commonalities among them in cost of doing business, and examined direct and indirect expenses, staffing, specialized requestor programs, and professional and public education programs. The three organ procurement organizations were chosen because of their performance in terms of donors per million population, complexity, and size. The following key indicators were compared and analyzed: annual operating budget, size and composition of staff, funds and resources invested in professional education versus public education, tissue recovery operations, results of minority initiatives, and employee compensation programs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EvansRWOrionsCEAscherNL. The potential supply of organ donors: An assessment of the efficiency of organ procurement efforts in the United States. JAMA.1992;267:239–246.
2.
EvansRW. The demand for transplantation in the United States. In: TerasakiPI, ed. Clinical Transplants, 1990.Los Angeles, Calif: UCLA Tissue Typing Laboratory; 1990:319–325.
3.
EvansRW. Need, demand, and supply in organ transplantation. Transplant Proc.1992;24:2152–2154.
4.
United Network for Organ Sharing. Monthly recipient registry report, December 1986. UNOS Update.1987;3:12.
5.
United Network for Organ Sharing. Monthly recipient registry report, December 1991. UNOS Update.1992;8:46–47.
6.
EvansRW. Organ procurement expenditures and the role of financial incentives. JAMA.1993;269:3113–3118.
7.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. The Surgeon General's Workshop on Increasing Organ Donation. Proceedings Report; July 8–10, 1991.
8.
US General Accounting Office. Organ Transplants: Increased Effort Needed to Boost Supply and Ensure Equitable Distribution of Organs.Washington DC: US General Accounting Office; April 1993. Publication GAO/HRD-93-56.
9.
SiminoffLAArnoldRMCaplanALVernigBASeltzerDL. Public policy governing organ and tissue procurement in the United States. Ann Intern Med.1995;123(1):10–17.
10.
NilesPAMatticeBJ. The timing factor in the consent process. J Transplant Coordination.1996;6(2):84–87.
11.
TymstraTJHeyinkJWPruimJSlooffMJ. Experience of bereaved relatives who granted or refused permission for organ donation. Fam Pract.1992;9:141–144.
12.
PelletierMI. The needs of family members of organ and tissue donors. Heart Lung.1993;22:151–157.
13.
BartucciMR. Organ donation: A study of the donor family perspective. J Neurosci Nurs.1987;19:305–309.
14.
Conditions for Coverage: Organ procurement organizations (42 CFR 485.301–485.308). Federal Register. September 8, 1994:46514–46517.
15.
NathanHMJarrellBEBroznikB. Estimation and characterization of the potential renal organ donor pool in Pennsylvania. Report of the Pennsylvania Statewide Donor Study. Transplantation.1991;51:142–149.
16.
Conditions for Coverage: OPOs, interim final rule. Federal Register. September 8, 1994:46500–46517 (includes changes to parts 405, 482, and 485).
17.
Final Rule: Medicare and Medicaid programs, survey, certification and enforcement of skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (42 CFR 498.3,498.90). Federal Register. September 28, 1995;60:50115–50120.
18.
Final Rule: Medicare program, providers and suppliers of specialized services: Technical amendments (42 CFR 498.3). Federal Register. January 9, 1995;60:2325–2330.
19.
Final Rule: Medicare and Medicaid programs, survey, certification and enforcement of skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (42 CFR 498.1,498.2,498.3,498.4,498.5,498.61). Federal Register. November 10, 1994;59:56116–56252.
20.
Proposed Rules: Organ procurement and transplantation network (OPTN). Federal Register.1994;59:46482–46499.
21.
MatesanzRMirandaB. International figures on organ donation and transplantation activities 1989–1995. Preliminary data report, council of Europe. Select committee of experts on the organizational aspects of cooperation in organ transplantation. Transplant Newsletter: Avla Medical Els. March 1996; Madrid, Spain.
22.
KappelDF. AOPO Update.1995;10(6):1–3.
23.
KappelDF. AOPO Update.1995;10(7):1–2.
24.
KappelDF. AOPO Update.1995;10(8):1.
25.
KappelDF. AOPO Update.1996;11(1):1.
26.
KappelDF. AOPO Update.1996;11(2):1–3.
27.
WarrenJ. Transpl News.1996;6(5):1–3.
28.
WarrenJ. Transpl News.1996;6(8):6.
29.
Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. 1994 AOPO Annual Survey.Falls Church, Va.
30.
BurrisGWJacobsAJ. A continuous quality improvement process to increase organ and tissue donation. J Transplant Coordination.1996;6(2):88–92.
31.
GravelMTSzemanP. Increasing referrals and donations using the transplant center development model. J Transplant Coordination.1996;6(1):32–36.
32.
Van DaWalkerSG. The attitudes of operating room nurses about organ donation. J Transplant Coordination.1994;4(2):75–78.
33.
VrtisMNicelyB. Nursing knowledge and attitudes toward organ donation. J Transplant Coordination.1993;3(2):70–79.
34.
RobbinsRAMcLaughlinNRNye-DameshekJ. Knowledge and beliefs about donation. I. Asking the experts. J Transplant Coordination.1993;3(1):7–13.
35.
RobbinsRANue-DameshekJMcLaughlinNR. Knowledge and beliefs about donation. II. Providing training for hospital-based professionals. J Transplant Coordination.1993;3(1):14–17.
36.
ReynoldsJ. Out Front Leadership: Discovering, Developing & Delivering Your Potential.Austin, Tex: Mott & Carlisle; 1994.
37.
JimCBarryS. Firing on All Cylinders. The Service/Quality System for High-Powered Corporate Performance.Homewood, Ill: Business One Irwin; 1992.
38.
BennisW. On Becoming A Leader.Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley; 1994.
