BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify steps during family approach for organ donation that may be modified to improve consent rates of potential organ donors. METHODS: Retrospective study of our local organ procurement organization (OPO) database of potential organ donors. Modifiable variables involved in the family approach of potential organ donors were collected and included race and sex of OPO representative, individual initiating approach discussion with family (RN or MD vs. OPO), length of donation discussion, use of a translator, and time of day of approach. RESULTS: Of 1137 potential organ donors, 661 (58%) consented and 476 (42%) declined. Consent rates were higher with matched race of donor and OPO representative (66% vs. 52%, p < 0.001), family approach by female OPO representative (67% vs. 56%, p = 0.002), if approach was initiated by OPO representative (69% vs. 49%, p < 0.001), and if consent rate was dependent on time of day the approach occurred: 6:00 am to noon (56%), noon to 6:00 pm (67%), 6:00 pm to midnight (68%), and midnight to 6:00 am (45%), p = 0.04. Family approach that led to consent lasted longer than those declining (67 vs. 43 minutes, p < 0.001). Independent predictors of consent to donation included female OPO representative (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; p = 0.006), approach discussion initiated by OPO representative (OR, 1.9; p = 0.001), and longer approach discussions (OR, 1.02; p < 0.001). The independent predictor of declined donation was the use of a translator (OR, 0.39; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Variables such as race and sex of OPO representative and time of day should be considered before approaching a family for organ donation. Avoiding translators during the approach process may improve donation rates. Education for health care providers should reinforce the importance of allowing OPO representatives to initiate the family approach for organ donation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level IV. Therapeutic study, level IV.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to identify steps during family approach for organ donation that may be modified to improve consent rates of potential organ donors. METHODS: Retrospective study of our local organ procurement organization (OPO) database of potential organ donors. Modifiable variables involved in the family approach of potential organ donors were collected and included race and sex of OPO representative, individual initiating approach discussion with family (RN or MD vs. OPO), length of donation discussion, use of a translator, and time of day of approach. RESULTS: Of 1137 potential organ donors, 661 (58%) consented and 476 (42%) declined. Consent rates were higher with matched race of donor and OPO representative (66% vs. 52%, p < 0.001), family approach by female OPO representative (67% vs. 56%, p = 0.002), if approach was initiated by OPO representative (69% vs. 49%, p < 0.001), and if consent rate was dependent on time of day the approach occurred: 6:00 am to noon (56%), noon to 6:00 pm (67%), 6:00 pm to midnight (68%), and midnight to 6:00 am (45%), p = 0.04. Family approach that led to consent lasted longer than those declining (67 vs. 43 minutes, p < 0.001). Independent predictors of consent to donation included female OPO representative (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; p = 0.006), approach discussion initiated by OPO representative (OR, 1.9; p = 0.001), and longer approach discussions (OR, 1.02; p < 0.001). The independent predictor of declined donation was the use of a translator (OR, 0.39; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Variables such as race and sex of OPO representative and time of day should be considered before approaching a family for organ donation. Avoiding translators during the approach process may improve donation rates. Education for health care providers should reinforce the importance of allowing OPO representatives to initiate the family approach for organ donation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level IV. Therapeutic study, level IV.
Authors: Marloes Witjes; Nichon E Jansen; Jacqueline van Dongen; Ingeborg H F Herold; Luuk Otterspoor; Bernadette J J M Haase-Kromwijk; Johannes G van der Hoeven; Wilson F Abdo Journal: Nurs Crit Care Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 2.325
Authors: Jacob D Bly; Sahaja Atluri; Alexis Graham-Stephenson; Melissa Ott; Lori Markham; Scott Sander; Dustin R Neel; Scott S Johnson; Donald G Vasquez; Steven P Whitt; Jody Olson; Harbaksh Sangha; An-Lin Cheng; Michael Moncure Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2022-01-11
Authors: Fabian Becker; Keith J Roberts; Miriam de Nadal; Michael Zink; Philipp Stiegler; Sonja Pemberger; Teresa Pont Castellana; Christian Kellner; Nick Murphy; Alexander Kaltenborn; Annette Tuffs; Volker Amelung; Christian Krauth; Janice Bayliss; Harald H Schrem Journal: Ann Transplant Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 1.530
Authors: Jeffrey M Singh; Ian M Ball; Michael Hartwick; Eli Malus; Karim Soliman; John G Boyd; Sonny Dhanani; Andrew Healey Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 8.262