For dialysis centers · Proposed workflow
Make the transplant pathway easier to explain and follow, with a shared status vocabulary, named owners, and reviewable next steps. This page describes a proposed workflow for review; it is not an operating product capability.
A conversation about transplant can stop at education, a referral can lose its owner, or an evaluation task can remain unclear. A center needs a way to name the next action while preserving the patient’s choices.
CMS describes assessment, plan-of-care education, transplant-referral planning and tracking, and communication as facility work. CMS: ESRD Clinic Services
A repeatable discussion and follow-up pattern for dialysis teams. It does not receive referrals, connect to a clinical record, decide candidacy, or report to CMS.
Review date: September 12, 2026. Measure specifications and survey instruments require revalidation.
Use plain language to show what has happened, what is still unknown, and who can confirm the next step.
01 / Discuss
Explain transplant alongside in-center hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and conservative management. Record questions, preference, uncertainty, or a reason for deferring discussion.
Owner: The dialysis interdisciplinary team documents the conversation and plan.
02 / Connect
Record the receiving transplant program, date sent, consent and practical barriers. Ask the program to confirm receipt; a center note is not proof that the program received it.
Owner: The designated dialysis team member follows up; the transplant program confirms its own receipt.
03 / Complete
Keep a nonclinical list of appointments, records, tests, and questions the program identifies. Do not infer eligibility from a task list. The program explains its decision and requirements.
Owner: The transplant program decides candidacy; the patient and dialysis team coordinate questions and support.
04 / Confirm
Ask the transplant program to confirm active or inactive status and what must happen next. Continue education and barrier support while the person waits or considers another path.
Owner: The transplant program confirms listing status; the dialysis team supports the documented plan.
A workflow note becomes useful when it states whose information it is and who can change it.
This proposal uses a nonclinical status vocabulary. It should not store or expose protected health information in this marketing beta. A workflow prompt cannot establish eligibility, referral receipt, waitlisting, a survey response, a CMS score, or a clinical outcome.
The proposed actions are hypotheses to measure separately from CMS results.
Consistent education, interest capture, referral follow-up, evaluation-task support, barrier resolution, and status verification may strengthen the work that precedes waitlisting. The revised 2026 ICH CAHPS treatment-choice and information topics can inform plain-language conversations.
CMS participation requirements include interdisciplinary assessment and plan-of-care work involving modality choice, transplant-referral planning and tracking, education, and communication. This proposal may support consistency; it does not make a facility compliant. The facility remains responsible for clinical judgment, documentation, reporting, and care.
CMS: End-Stage Renal Disease Facilities — Conditions for Coverage
Transportation, housing, insurance, caregiving, food, language, and digital access can interrupt evaluation and follow-up.
Route a barrier to the appropriate local staff member and record the agreed next action. CMS removed its social-driver measures beginning with PY 2027; barrier support remains valuable, but it must not be sold as QIP points. CMS: CY 2026 ESRD PPS Final Rule Fact Sheet
Transplant Check cannot guarantee a QIP Total Performance Score, PPPW, either Care Compare star rating, an ICH CAHPS result, a referral or evaluation outcome, waitlisting, transplant, hospitalization, survival, or quality of life. Workflow completion should be measured first and reviewed independently from CMS and clinical outcomes.