Purpose of Review:To hear from living kidney donors and recipients about what they perceive are the barriers to living donor kidney transplantation, and how patients can develop and lead innovative solutions to increase the rate and enhance the experiences of living donor kidney transplantation in Ontario.Sources of Information:A one-day patient-led workshop on March 10th, 2016 in Toronto, Ontario.Methods:Participants who were previously engaged in priority-setting exercises were invited to the meeting by patient lead, Sue McKenzie. This included primarily past kidney donors, kidney transplant recipients, as well as researchers, and representatives from renal and transplant health care organizations across Ontario.Key Findings:Four main barriers were identified: lack of education for patients and families, lack of public awareness about living donor kidney transplantation, financial costs incurred by donors, and health care system-level inefficiencies. Several novel solutions were proposed, including the development of a peer network to support and educate patients and families with kidney failure to pursue living donor kidney transplantation; consistent reimbursement policies to cover donors’ out-of-pocket expenses; and partnering with the paramedical and insurance industry to improve the efficiency of the donor and recipient evaluation process.Limitations:While there was a diversity of experience in the room from both donors and recipients, it does not provide a complete picture of the living kidney donation process for all Ontario donors and recipients. The discussion was provincially focused, and as such, some of the solutions suggested may already be in practice or unfeasible in other provinces.Implications:The creation of a patient-led provincial council was suggested as an important next step to advance the development and implementation of solutions to overcome patient-identified barriers to living donor kidney transplantation.

Background: Many patients with kidney failure will live longer and healthier lives if they receive a kidney transplant rather than dialysis. However, multiple barriers prevent patients from accessing this treatment option. Objective: To determine if a quality improvement intervention provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care) enables more patients with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant to complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Design: This protocol describes a pragmatic 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, cluster-randomized clinical trial—the Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) trial. Setting: All 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, with a trial start date of November 1, 2017. The original end date of March 31, 2021 (3.4 years) has been extended to December 31, 2021 (4.1 years) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants: During the trial, the 26 CKD programs are expected to care for more than 10 000 adult patients with CKD (including patients approaching the need for dialysis and patients receiving dialysis) with no recorded contraindications to a kidney transplant. Intervention: Programs were randomly allocated to provide a quality improvement intervention or usual care. The intervention has 4 main components: (1) local quality improvement teams and administrative support; (2) tailored education and resources for staff, patients, and living kidney donor candidates; (3) support from kidney transplant recipients and living kidney donors; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by program leaders. Primary Outcome: The primary outcome is the number of key steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant analyzed at the cluster level (CKD program). The following 4 unique steps per patient will be counted: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) at least one living kidney donor candidate contacts a transplant center for an intended recipient and completes a health history questionnaire to begin their evaluation, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant wait list, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor. Planned Primary Analysis: Study data will be obtained from Ontario’s linked administrative healthcare databases. An intent-to-treat analysis will be conducted comparing the primary outcome between randomized groups using a 2-stage approach. First stage: residuals are obtained from fitting a regression model to individual-level variables ignoring intervention and clustering effects. Second stage: residuals from the first stage are aggregated at the cluster level as the outcome. Limitations: It may not be possible to isolate independent effects of each intervention component, the usual care group could adopt intervention components leading to contamination bias, and the relatively small number of clusters could mean the 2 arms are not balanced on all baseline prognostic factors. Conclusions: The EnAKT LKD trial will provide high-quality evidence on whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention helps patients complete more steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.

The duration of kidney transplant donor evaluation is variable and can be lengthy. Better understanding of the reasons for a prolonged evaluation may inform quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary delays.

Background:Many working-age individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) are unable to work, or are only able to work at a reduced capacity and/or with a reduction in time at work, and receive disability payments, either from the Canadian government or from private insurers, but the magnitude of those payments is unknown.Objective:The objective of this study was to estimate Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit and private disability insurance benefits paid to Canadians with advanced kidney failure, and how feasible improvements in prevention, identification, and early treatment of CKD and increased use of kidney transplantation might mitigate those costs.Design:This study used an analytical model combining Canadian data from various sources.Setting and Patients:This study included all patients with advanced CKD in Canada, including those with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/m2 and those on dialysis.Measurements:We combined disability estimates from a provincial kidney care program with the prevalence of advanced CKD and estimated disability payments from the Canada Pension Plan and private insurance plans to estimate overall disability benefit payments for Canadians with advanced CKD.Results:We estimate that Canadians with advanced kidney failure are receiving disability benefit payments of at least Can$217 million annually. These estimates are sensitive to the proportion of individuals with advanced kidney disease who are unable to work, and plausible variation in this estimate could mean patients with advanced kidney disease are receiving up to Can$260 million per year. Feasible strategies to reduce the proportion of individuals with advanced kidney disease, either through prevention, delay or reduction in severity, or increasing the rate of transplantation, could result in reductions in the cost of Canada Pension Plan and private disability insurance payments by Can$13.8 million per year within 5 years.Limitations:This study does not estimate how CKD prevention or increasing the rate of kidney transplantation might influence health care cost savings more broadly, and does not include the cost to provincial governments for programs that provide income for individuals without private insurance and who do not qualify for Canada Pension Plan disability payments.Conclusions:Private disability insurance providers and federal government programs incur high costs related to individuals with advanced kidney failure, highlighting the significance of kidney disease not only to patients, and their families, but also to these other important stakeholders. Improvements in care of individuals with kidney disease could reduce these costs.

One third of persons initiated dialysis before receiving their living kidney donor transplant, despite their donor's evaluation being well underway. Future studies should consider whether some of these events can be prevented by addressing inappropriate delays to improve patient outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.

Living donor kidney transplantation is the most promising way to avoid or minimize the amount of time a recipient spends on dialysis before transplantation. We studied 887 living kidney donors at 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, who started their evaluation and donated between April 2006 and March 2014. Using a series of hypothetical scenarios, we estimated the impact of an earlier living donor evaluation completion and donation on the number pre-emptive transplants, the time spent on dialysis, healthcare cost savings from averted dialysis costs (CAD $2016), and the number of additional transplants. During the study period, if the donor transplants occurred 3 months earlier, the healthcare system would save on average $12 055 (standard deviation [SD] $13 594) per recipient; 21 recipients could have avoided dialysis altogether, and 57 additional transplants (a 26% increase) could have occurred each year. For the 220 living kidney donor transplants performed in Ontario, Canada, each year, this translates to a total annual cost savings of $2.7M. In conclusion, a more timely evaluation of living donor candidates and their intended recipients may increase the supply of kidneys for transplantation. Improved evaluation efficiency may also yield more pre-emptive transplants and substantial healthcare cost savings through averted dialysis costs.

BackgroundGraduating medical students enter their internship with varied levels of practical experience in procedural skills. To address this problem, many medical schools have introduced intensive skill training courses immediately prior to graduation. This study examines the impact of a pre-intern (PrInt) education package, consisting of a short intensive course, followed by a one-month clinical attachment.MethodsIn September 2014, all PrInt students (n = 53) at the Central Clinical School (Sydney, NSW, Australia) attended three days of intensive training. This included a didactic introduction, case-based scenarios, and interactive workshops. This was followed by four weeks of targeted, experiential learning during a clinical attachment (PrInt term). Immediately prior to training and following PrInt, all students were invited to complete a six-domain questionnaire containing 40 subscale closed questions to assess their knowledge, experience, and confidence in key practical skills essential for a successful internship.ResultsA total of 41/53 (77%) students completed an identical questionnaire prior to PrInt, and 37/53 (70%) immediately following PrInt. Respondents reported statistically significant increases in their experience, ability, knowledge, and confidence in a number of domains. The key changes were the following: knowledge of pharmacy skills (mean improvement = 26.48, confidence interval 95% [CI 95%] = 17.29–35.66, p ≤ 0.0001) and management of procedural skills (mean = 24.46, CI 95% = 16.58–32.34, p ≤ 0.0001). Despite the positive overall increase in most domains, some subscale results remained low following the educational package; only 44% students had inserted a nasogastric tube; only 44% reported confidence in commencing patients on warfarin; and only 42% in managing a hospital emergency. Surprisingly, there was a slight decline both in confidence in communicating with members of the hospital team (10%) and in awareness of the causes of hypoglycemia (7%).ConclusionFinal year students perceived substantial benefit from an educational package specifically aimed at improving their practical skills immediately prior to internship.

Much of the clinical literature on lesbian relationships focuses on the pathological aspects of the psychodynamic of merging (Bwch, 1982(Bwch, , 1985Decker, 1984;Elise, 1986;Krestan & Bepko, 1980). This paper explores the historical background of the notion of psychological merger in relationships from both a psychodynamic object relational theoretical base (Fairbairn, 1952;Jacobson, 1964; Kernberg, 1976; Kohut, 1977;Mahler, 1974) and the more recent lheoretical work relating to female development (Burch, 1982(Burch, , 1985Chodorow, 1978;Dinnerstein, 1977;Gilligan, 1982; Stem, 1983).Recent work exploring the importance of relationships in develop mental process challen~es the idea that "intense interuersonal connection-involves a movement into more primitive functioning" (Jordan, 1984, p. 2). Mencher and Slater (1991) in a recent presentation suggest that merger represenls an adaptive relational strategy for lesbians attempting to maintain the couple's integrity in a society inimical to same-sex love. A continued effort is needed to explore and redefine the meaning of merger in lesbian relationships.