@ARTICLE{10.3389/ti.2022.10461, AUTHOR={Milross, Luke and Brown, Chloe and Gladkis, Laura and Downes, Kylie and Goodwin, Melissa and Madden, Susanna and McDonald, Mark and Barry, Lucinda and Opdam, Helen and Manara, Alex and Gardiner, Dale}, TITLE={Comparing Deceased Organ Donation Performance in Two Countries that Use Different Metrics: Comparing Apples With Apples}, JOURNAL={Transplant International}, VOLUME={35}, YEAR={2022}, URL={https://www.frontierspartnerships.org/articles/10.3389/ti.2022.10461}, DOI={10.3389/ti.2022.10461}, ISSN={1432-2277}, ABSTRACT={Organ donation networks audit and report on national or regional organ donation performance, however there are inconsistencies in the metrics and definitions used, rendering comparisons difficult or inappropriate. This is despite multiple attempts exploring the possibility for convergently evolving audits so that collectives of donation networks might transparently share data and practice and then target system interventions. This paper represents a collaboration between the United Kingdom and Australian organ donation organisations which aimed to understand the intricacies of our respective auditing systems, compare the metrics and definitions they employ and ultimately assess their level of comparability. This point of view outlines the historical context underlying the development of the auditing tools, demonstrates their differences to the Critical Pathway proposed as a common tool a decade ago and presents a side-by-side comparison of donation definitions, metrics and data for the 2019 calendar year. There were significant differences in donation definition terminology, metrics and overall structure of the audits. Fitting the audits to a tiered scaffold allowed for reasonable comparisons however this required substantial effort and understanding of nuance. Direct comparison of international and inter-regional donation performance is challenging and would benefit from consistent auditing processes across organisations.} }