BACKGROUND: Although U.S. transplantation programs must submit living-donor follow-up data through 2 years after donation, the submissions have high rates of incomplete or missing data. It is important to understand barriers programs face in collecting follow-up information. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted to complete a survey about program attitudes concerning donor follow-up, follow-up practices, and barriers to success. RESULTS: Respondents representing 147 programs (111 with only LKD and 36 with both LKD and LLD) participated. Sixty-eight percent of LKD and 83% of LLD respondents said that achieving follow-up was a high priority. The majority agreed that donors should be followed at least 2 years (61% LKD programs and 73% LLD programs), and sizeable percentages (31% LKD and 37% LLD) endorsed 5 years of follow-up. However, approximately 40% of programs lost contact with more than 75% of their donors by 2 years after donation. Follow-up barriers included donors not wanting to return to the program (87%), out-of-date contact information (73%), and lack of program (54%) or donor (49%) reimbursement for follow-up costs. Whereas 92% of LKD and 96% of LLD programs inform potential donors about follow-up requirements, fewer (67% LKD and 78% LLD) develop plans with donors to achieve follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents agree that donor follow-up is important, but they report difficulty achieving it. Improvements may occur if programs work with donors to develop plans to achieve follow-up, programmatic standards are set for completeness in follow-up data reporting, and sufficient staff resources are available to ensure ongoing post-donation contact.
BACKGROUND: Although U.S. transplantation programs must submit living-donor follow-up data through 2 years after donation, the submissions have high rates of incomplete or missing data. It is important to understand barriers programs face in collecting follow-up information. METHODS: Two hundred thirty-one programs performing living kidney donor (LKD) and/or living liver donor (LLD) transplantation were contacted to complete a survey about program attitudes concerning donor follow-up, follow-up practices, and barriers to success. RESULTS: Respondents representing 147 programs (111 with only LKD and 36 with both LKD and LLD) participated. Sixty-eight percent of LKD and 83% of LLD respondents said that achieving follow-up was a high priority. The majority agreed that donors should be followed at least 2 years (61% LKD programs and 73% LLD programs), and sizeable percentages (31% LKD and 37% LLD) endorsed 5 years of follow-up. However, approximately 40% of programs lost contact with more than 75% of their donors by 2 years after donation. Follow-up barriers included donors not wanting to return to the program (87%), out-of-date contact information (73%), and lack of program (54%) or donor (49%) reimbursement for follow-up costs. Whereas 92% of LKD and 96% of LLD programs inform potential donors about follow-up requirements, fewer (67% LKD and 78% LLD) develop plans with donors to achieve follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents agree that donor follow-up is important, but they report difficulty achieving it. Improvements may occur if programs work with donors to develop plans to achieve follow-up, programmatic standards are set for completeness in follow-up data reporting, and sufficient staff resources are available to ensure ongoing post-donation contact.
Authors: Ann K Eno; Jessica M Ruck; Sarah E Van Pilsum Rasmussen; Madeleine M Waldram; Alvin G Thomas; Tanjala S Purnell; Jacqueline M Garonzik Wang; Allan B Massie; Fawaz Al Almmary; Lisa M Cooper; Dorry L Segev; Michael A Levan; Macey L Henderson Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: John C Sieverdes; Lynne S Nemeth; Gayenell S Magwood; Prabhakar K Baliga; Kenneth D Chavin; Ken J Ruggiero; Frank A Treiber Journal: Prog Transplant Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 1.187
Authors: Jessica M Ruck; Sheng Zhou; Alvin G Thomas; Shannon L Cramm; Allan B Massie; John R Montgomery; Jonathan C Berger; Macey L Henderson; Dorry L Segev Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Fawaz Al Ammary; Alvin G Thomas; Allan B Massie; Abimereki D Muzaale; Ashton A Shaffer; Brittany Koons; Mohamud A Qadi; Deidra C Crews; Jacqueline Garonzik-Wang; Hai Fang; Daniel C Brennan; Krista L Lentine; Dorry L Segev; Macey L Henderson Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: M L Henderson; A G Thomas; A Shaffer; A B Massie; X Luo; C M Holscher; T S Purnell; K L Lentine; D L Segev Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Y Ohashi; G Thomas; S Nurko; B Stephany; R Fatica; A Chiesa; A D Rule; T Srinivas; J D Schold; S D Navaneethan; E D Poggio Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Deonna R Moore; David Serur; Dianne LaPointe Rudow; James R Rodrigue; Rebecca Hays; Matthew Cooper Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Allan B Massie; Courtenay M Holscher; Macey L Henderson; Lara M Fahmy; Alvin G Thomas; Fawaz Al Ammary; Samantha N Getsin; Jon J Snyder; Krista L Lentine; Amit X Garg; Dorry L Segev Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 14.766