4.1 Article

Development of national system performance metrics for tissue donation, production, and distribution activity

Journal

CELL AND TISSUE BANKING
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 281-296

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10561-017-9637-2

Keywords

Canada; Statistics; Data; Eye; Tissue; Donation; Transplantation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Canada's federal, provincial, and territorial governments gave Canadian Blood Services a mandate for organ and tissue donation and transplantation, including system performance, data and analytics. In 2012 Canadian Blood Services facilitated an eye and tissue banking workshop focused on standardized specifications and practices. At the workshop, the Canadian tissue community directed Canadian Blood Services to facilitate the development and implementation of a national data stream and analytics. Prior to this no national data was prospectively collected or collated on tissue donation, production or distribution activity. An eye and tissue data committee was formed with representation from eye and tissue banks in all Canadian jurisdictions. A minimum data set, standardized definitions, a data submission form and a quality assurance process was developed. Training was provided to data personal identified by each eye and tissue bank. Data collection was initiated January 1, 2013; with quarterly data submitted to Canadian Blood Services via excel spreadsheet. Data was submitted by sixteen Canadian eye and tissue banks, located in eight of Canada's thirteen provinces and territories, representing a census of activity. Annual data reports, with trend analysis, are generated and distributed to the tissue community to inform operational strategy and system performance improvement. This report provides an overview of the data process and provides visibility to the Canadian tissue donation, production and distribution activities for 3 years; January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available