Enhancing GVHD Data Quality through Integrated Adjudication and Real-Time Clinical Collaboration

Accurate graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) staging and grading are critical for both patient care and compliance with CIBMTR reporting standards. However, discrepancies in documentation and retrospective data entry can compromise data quality. At many centers, data management teams operate separately from clinical workflows, resulting in delayed or incomplete data capture. Recognizing these challenges, our center developed a collaborative model that integrates data managers into both real-time and retrospective GVHD review processes. Aims/Goals: Improve the accuracy and consistency of GVHD data reported to CIBMTR. • Strengthen collaboration and communication between clinical and data management teams. • Create a reproducible model that enhances real-time clinical engagement of data managers. • Reduce documentation discrepancies through structured, multidisciplinary adjudication. Our process includes two key components (see figure 1 ): 1. Weekly Real-Time Milestone Alerts: •○ Data managers proactively notify clinical teams (APPs and MDs) of upcoming CIBMTR milestones that align with clinic visits. ○ Teams confirm GVHD documentation in real-time, allowing data managers to track patient status and anticipate reporting needs. ○ This facilitates early identification of documentation gaps and improves the trimester-based reporting lag. 2. Monthly Multidisciplinary GVHD Adjudication Meetings: ○ APPs, physicians, and data managers convene to review GVHD staging and grading for any patients who met milestones in the previous month (aGVHD: Days +30, 60, 100; cGVHD: Days +180, 270, 365). ○ Clinical documentation is reconciled in the electronic medical record with reporting data to ensure accuracy and consistency. This integrated, real-time approach enhances the quality of GVHD data and strengthens collaboration between data and clinical teams. By involving data managers in ongoing clinical workflows and structured adjudication, we have improved documentation accuracy, reduced reporting discrepancies, and fostered a culture of shared responsibility. The model also enhances data manager engagement and understanding of clinical nuances, leading to more reliable CIBMTR reporting. Next Steps: • Evaluate the impact of this model through metrics such as data discrepancy rates and CIBMTR audit outcomes. • Evaluate how to expand GVHD assessment model for patients followed at their referring center. • Explore expansion of this model to other complex reporting areas (e.g., relapse, infection, or toxicity). • Share this model with other transplant centers to promote standardized best practices for high-quality data reporting.