Attitude toward cadaveric organ donation among personnel in a transplant hospital is similar to that described in the general public and is determined by many factors. The following factors are most noteworthy: (i) job category; (ii) knowledge of the concept of brain death; (iii) consideration of the matter of donation in the family; and (iv) fear of manipulation of the cadaver. In view of this attitude, which is similar to that of the general public, it is necessary to carry out promotion activities if we want to increase cadaveric donation rates.
The purpose of this article is the assessment of occupational exposure to perchloroethylene (PCE) and its clinical repercussions for dry-cleaning employees. The authors measured atmospheric levels of PCE and blood levels in a population of 50 exposed employees then conducted a study of clinical symptomatology in exposed and non-exposed subjects linked with this solvent. Fifty employees and 95 controls were studied. The median value of atmospheric PCE was 7 ppm (0.22-33), and the median blood level of PCE was 73.6 μg/l (11.8-144). These levels were correlated statistically to the action of sludge scraping and to the existence of automatic scrapers (p < 0.01). Eight percent of PCE blood levels were higher than the biological levels recently set in France. The exposed population did not show excessive signs of drowsiness nor of pre-narcotic syndrome or other symptoms studied. Dry-cleaning employees were exposed to PCE at atmospheric levels lower than the French and American chronic recommended exposure levels but some results were higher than recommended values. For PCE blood levels for the general working population, results were respectively lower than French and American national recommended levels in 92% and 94% cases. Risk should be considered, however, carefully in women of childbearing age, as 64% exceeded the recommended blood levels for pregnant women. This exposure did not generate any studied neurobehavioral symptomatology.
Introduction: The attitude of health care personnel is fundamental for the procurement of organs, especially when they are based in transplant-related services. The objective of this study is to assess the attitude of hospital personnel in transplant-related services toward living kidney donation in a hospital with a cadaveric and living solid organ transplant program. Materials and Methods: A random sample was taken and stratified by type of service and job category (n = 330) in transplant-related services (procurement units, transplant units and follow-up units). The attitude toward cadaveric organ donation was evaluated using a validated psychosocial questionnaire. Student’s t test, χ2 test, and logistic regression analysis were applied for statistical analysis. Results: The questionnaire completion rate was 94% (n = 309). Most respondents (87%, n = 268) are in favor of related living kidney donation. However, only 17% (n = 53) of respondents are in favor if this donation is unrelated. Of the rest, 4% (n = 12) of respondents would not accept a donated living kidney organ and the remaining 9% (n = 29) are undecided. Only two variables are significantly related to attitude towards living kidney donation: age (p = 0.013) and a willingness to receive a donated living organ on the part of the respondent, if a transplant organ were needed (p < 0.001). Both variables persist as significant independent variables in the logistic regression analysis. There is also a close relationship between attitude toward living kidney donation and attitude toward living liver donation (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The personnel in donation and transplantation units tend to have a favorable attitude towards living kidney donation making them a key element in the current promotion of living kidney donation. Moreover, the youngest workers in these units are those who tend to be more in favor, thus offering a promising future for this type of kidney donation which is becoming more of a necessity given the cadaveric organ deficit.
The questionnaire completion rate was 94% (N=309). Only 10% (N=31) of respondents are in favour of living liver donation if it is unrelated, but another 67% (N=207) are in favour if donation were for a relative. Of the rest, 11% (N=33) do not agree with living liver donation and the remaining 12% (N=38) are undecided. In the control group, attitude towards living liver donation is favourable in 82% (N=344) (P=0.0908). An analysis of the variables that influence attitude shows that the following factors are significantly related: (1) age (P=0.037); (2) a respondent's belief that he or she may need a transplant in the future (P=0.013); and (3) if it were necessary, a willingness to receive a donated living liver organ (P=0.000). Of the variables that have the most influence on attitude towards living liver donation in the bivariate analysis, there are two variables that are statistically significant in the multivariate analysis: (1) age and (2) willingness to accept a donated living liver organ from a relative if it were needed (OR=14.19). There is also a close relationship between attitude towards living liver donation and attitude towards living kidney donation (P=0.000) CONCLUSIONS: There is a favourable attitude towards living liver donation among personnel in units related to the transplantation and donation process, although it is less favourable than expected. Therefore, it will be necessary to increase this level of acceptance and to improve information about the matter if we want to encourage living liver donation. The youngest workers in these units are those who are most in favour, which leads us to believe that there is a hopeful future for this type of liver donation that is so necessary given the cadaveric organ deficit.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.