Location of in-house organ procurement organization staff in level I trauma centers increases conversion of potential donors to actual donors

Shafer, Teresa J.; Davis, Kimberly; Holtzman, Samuel; Buren, Charles T. Van; Crafts, Nicholas J.; Durand, Roger

doi:10.1097/01.tp.0000060532.70301.32

Cited by 47 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the known increases in authorization rates when trained personnel make requests, in-house OPO coordinators have been strategically placed in some level I trauma centers to handle all authorization issues. Although randomized trials of in-house coordinators are lacking, observational reports from these centers have consistently shown increased conversion rates following the introduction of an in-house OPO coordinator (74)(75)(76)(77). Also, it is unknown whether similar increases in conversion rates could be obtained by training nurses, social workers, or other hospital employees.…”

Section: Who Should Request Authorization?mentioning

confidence: 90%

Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU

Kotloff

Blosser

Fulda

et al. 2015

Critical Care Medicine

275

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.

show abstract

Section: Who Should Request Authorization?mentioning

confidence: 90%

Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU

Kotloff

Blosser

Fulda

et al. 2015

Critical Care Medicine

275

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the innovations promoted by Collaborative participants are the practices of placing in-house coordinators (trained requestors) in large donor hospitals and the involvement of critical care specialists (intensivists) to establish well-defined goals and processes for the management of potential deceased donors (3,4). In addition, establishment of donor and recipient DCD and ECD selection criteria have been shown to be effective in increasing utilization of such donor organs.…”

Section: Pancreas Transplant Patient and Allograft Survival Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation in the United States, 1997–2006: The HRSA Breakthrough Collaboratives and the 58 DSA Challenge

Leichtman

Cohen

Keith

et al. 2008

American Journal of Transplantation

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Growth in the number of active patients on the kidney transplant waiting list has slowed. Projections based on the most recent 5-year data suggest the total waiting list will grow at a rate of 4138 registrations per year, whereas the active waiting list will increase at less than one-sixth that rate, or 663 registrations per year. The last 5 years have seen a small trend toward improved unadjusted allograft survival for living and deceased donor kidneys. Since 2004 the overall number of pancreas transplants has declined. Among pancreas recipients, those with simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplants experienced the highest pancreas graft survival rates. In response to the ongoing shortage of deceased donor organs, the US Health Resources and Services Administration launched the Organ Donation Breakthrough

show abstract

“…These comparative percentages show that the presence of a dedicated IHC had a large effect on the overall number of organs donated. A different study (Shafer et al 2003) showed very similar increases in organs donated once at least one IHC was placed inside of a hospital. "The use of IHCs, based directly in the hospital, resulted in significant increases in donor referral, consent, and conversion rates across all racial and ethnic groups, with the largest increases noted in minority populations" (1331).…”

Section: Conclusion: Toward a New Default To Dona-tion Policymentioning

confidence: 89%

Nudge, Nudge or Shove, Shove—The Right Way for Nudges to Increase the Supply of Donated Cadaver Organs

Whyte

Selinger

Caplan

et al. 2012

The American Journal of Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2008) contend that mandated choice is the most practical nudge for increasing organ donation. We argue that they are wrong, and their mistake results from failing to appreciate how perceptions of meaning can influence people's responses to nudges. We favor a policy of default to donation that is subject to immediate family veto power, includes options for people to opt out (and be educated on how to do so), and emphasizes the role of organ procurement organizations and in-house transplant donation coordinators creating better environments for increasing the supply of organs and tissues obtained from cadavers. This policy will provide better opportunities for offering nudges in contexts where in-house coordinators work with families. We conclude by arguing that nudges can be introduced ethically and effectively into these contexts only if nudge designers collaborate with in-house coordinators and stakeholders.

show abstract

Location of in-house organ procurement organization staff in level I trauma centers increases conversion of potential donors to actual donors

Cited by 47 publications

References 10 publications

Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU

Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU

Kidney and Pancreas Transplantation in the United States, 1997–2006: The HRSA Breakthrough Collaboratives and the 58 DSA Challenge

Nudge, Nudge or Shove, Shove—The Right Way for Nudges to Increase the Supply of Donated Cadaver Organs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About