Dataset Information

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Education Outside of Transplant Centers about Live Donor Transplantation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference.

ABSTRACT: Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) offers better quality of life and clinical outcomes, including patient survival, compared with remaining on dialysis or receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant. Although LDKT education within transplant centers for both potential recipients and living donors is very important, outreach and education to kidney patients in settings other than transplant centers and to the general public is also critical to increase access to this highly beneficial treatment. In June 2014, the American Society of Transplantation's Live Donor Community of Practice, with the support of 10 additional sponsors, convened a consensus conference to determine best practices in LDKT, including a workgroup focused on developing a set of recommendations for optimizing outreach and LDKT education outside of transplant centers. Members of this workgroup performed a structured literature review, conducted teleconference meetings, and met in person at the 2-day conference. Their efforts resulted in consensus around the following recommendations. First, preemptive transplantation should be promoted through increased LDKT education by primary care physicians and community nephrologists. Second, dialysis providers should be trained to educate their own patients about LDKT and deceased donor kidney transplantation. Third, partnerships between community organizations, organ procurement organizations, religious organizations, and transplant centers should be fostered to support transplantation. Fourth, use of technology should be improved or expanded to better educate kidney patients and their support networks. Fifth, LDKT education and outreach should be improved for kidney patients in rural areas. Finally, a consensus-driven, evidence-based public message about LDKT should be developed. Discussion of the effect and potential for implementation around each recommendation is featured, particularly regarding reducing racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to LDKT. To accomplish these recommendations, the entire community of professionals and organizations serving kidney patients must work collaboratively toward ensuring accurate, comprehensive, and up-to-date LDKT education for all patients, thereby reducing barriers to LDKT access and increasing LDKT rates.

SUBMITTER: Waterman AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4559502 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Education Outside of Transplant Centers about Live Donor Transplantation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference.

Waterman Amy D AD Morgievich Marie M Cohen David J DJ Butt Zeeshan Z Chakkera Harini A HA Lindower Carrie C Hays Rebecca E RE Hiller Janet M JM Lentine Krista L KL Matas Arthur J AJ Poggio Emilio D ED Rees Michael A MA Rodrigue James R JR LaPointe Rudow Dianne D

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20150626 9

Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) offers better quality of life and clinical outcomes, including patient survival, compared with remaining on dialysis or receiving a deceased donor kidney transplant. Although LDKT education within transplant centers for both potential recipients and living donors is very important, outreach and education to kidney patients in settings other than transplant centers and to the general public is also critical to increase access to this highly beneficial tr ...[more]

PMID: 26116651

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to provide expert consensus recommendations to establish a global ultrasound curriculum for undergraduate medical students.Methods64 multi-disciplinary ultrasound experts from 16 countries, 50 multi-disciplinary ultrasound consultants, and 21 medical students and residents contributed to these recommendations. A modified Delphi consensus method was used that included a systematic literature search, evaluation of the quality of literature by the GRADE system, and the RAND appropriateness method for panel judgment and consensus decisions. The process included four in-person international discussion sessions and two rounds of online voting.ResultsA total of 332 consensus conference statements in four curricular domains were considered: (1) curricular scope (4 statements), (2) curricular rationale (10 statements), (3) curricular characteristics (14 statements), and (4) curricular content (304 statements). Of these 332 statements, 145 were recommended, 126 were strongly recommended, and 61 were not recommended. Important aspects of an undergraduate ultrasound curriculum identified include curricular integration across the basic and clinical sciences and a competency and entrustable professional activity-based model. The curriculum should form the foundation of a life-long continuum of ultrasound education that prepares students for advanced training and patient care. In addition, the curriculum should complement and support the medical school curriculum as a whole with enhanced understanding of anatomy, physiology, pathophysiological processes and clinical practice without displacing other important undergraduate learning. The content of the curriculum should be appropriate for the medical student level of training, evidence and expert opinion based, and include ongoing collaborative research and development to ensure optimum educational value and patient care.ConclusionsThe international consensus conference has provided the first comprehensive document of recommendations for a basic ultrasound curriculum. The document reflects the opinion of a diverse and representative group of international expert ultrasound practitioners, educators, and learners. These recommendations can standardize undergraduate medical student ultrasound education while serving as a basis for additional research in medical education and the application of ultrasound in clinical practice.

Project description:Socioeconomically deprived individuals with renal disease are less likely to receive a live-donor kidney transplant than less-deprived individuals. This qualitative study aimed to identify reasons for the observed socioeconomic disparity in live-donor kidney transplantation.A qualitative study using face-to-face in-depth semistructured interviews.A UK tertiary renal referral hospital and transplant centre.Purposive sampling was used to select deceased-donor transplant recipients from areas of high socioeconomic deprivation (SED) (19 participants), followed by a low SED comparison group (13 participants), aiming for maximum diversity in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, primary renal disease and previous renal replacement therapy.Participants were interviewed following their routine transplant clinic review. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded using NVivo software and analysed using the constant comparison method described in Grounded Theory.Themes common and distinct to each socioeconomic group emerged. 6 themes appeared to distinguish between individuals from areas of high and low SED. 4 themes were distinct to participants from areas of high SED: (1) Passivity, (2) Disempowerment, (3) Lack of social support and (4) Short-term focus. 2 themes were distinct to the low SED group: (1) Financial concerns and (2) Location of donor.Several of the emerging themes from the high SED individuals relate to an individual's lack of confidence and skill in managing their health and healthcare; themes that are in keeping with low levels of patient activation. Inadequate empowerment of socioeconomically deprived individuals by healthcare practitioners was also described. Financial concerns did not emerge as a barrier from interviews with the high SED group. Interventions aiming to redress the observed socioeconomic inequity should be targeted at both patients and clinical teams to increase empowerment and ensure shared decision-making.

Project description:The purpose of the European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Conference is to provide updates on recent stroke therapy research and to give an opportunity for the participants to discuss how these results may be implemented into clinical routine. The meeting started 22 years ago as Karolinska Stroke Update, but since 2014 it is a joint conference with European Stroke Organisation. Importantly, it provides a platform for discussion on the European Stroke Organisation guidelines process and on recommendations to the European Stroke Organisation guidelines committee on specific topics. By this, it adds a direct influence from stroke professionals otherwise not involved in committees and work groups on the guideline procedure. The discussions at the conference may also inspire new guidelines when motivated. The topics raised at the meeting are selected by the scientific programme committee mainly based on recent important scientific publications. This year's European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Meeting was held in Stockholm on 11-13 November 2018. There were 11 scientific sessions discussed in the meeting including two short sessions. Each session except the short sessions produced a consensus statement (Full version with background, issues, conclusions and references are published as web-material and at www.eso-karolinska.org and http://eso-stroke.org) and recommendations which were prepared by a writing committee consisting of session chair(s), scientific secretary and speakers. These statements were presented to the 250 participants of the meeting. In the open meeting, general participants commented on the consensus statement and recommendations and the final document were adjusted based on the discussion from the general participants Recommendations (grade of evidence) were graded according to the 1998 Karolinska Stroke Update meeting with regard to the strength of evidence. Grade A Evidence: Strong support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (at least one randomised controlled trial plus one statistical review). Grade B Evidence: Support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (one randomised controlled trial or one statistical review). Grade C Evidence: No reasonable support from randomised controlled trials, recommendations based on small randomised and/or non-randomised controlled trials evidence.

Project description:BackgroundTransplant education in dialysis centers can increase access to kidney transplant; however, dialysis center transplant barriers are common, and limited research identifies the most effective transplant education approaches.MethodsWe surveyed transplant educators in 1694 US dialysis centers about their transplant knowledge, use of 12 education practices, and 8 identified education barriers. Transplant wait-listing rates were calculated using US Renal Data System data.ResultsFifty-two percent of educators orally recommended transplant to patients, 31% had in-center transplant discussions with patients, 17% distributed print educational resources, and 3% used intensive education approaches. Distribution of print education (incident rate ratio: 1.021.151.30) and using >1 intensive education practice (1.001.111.23) within dialysis centers were associated with increased wait-listing rates. Several dialysis center characteristics were associated with reduced odds of using education strategies leading to increased wait-listing. Centers with greater percentages of uninsured patients (odds ratio [OR]: 0.960.970.99), in rural locations (OR: 0.660.790.95), with for-profit ownership (OR: 0.640.770.91), and with more patients older than 65 years (OR: 0.050.110.23) had lower odds of recommending transplant, while centers with a higher patient-to-staff ratio were more likely to do so (OR: 1.011.031.04). Language barriers (OR: 0.480.640.86) and having competing work priorities (OR: 0.400.530.70) reduced the odds of distributing print education. Providers with greater transplant knowledge were more likely to use >1 intensive educational strategy (OR: 1.011.271.60) while providers who reported competing work priorities (OR: 0.510.660.84) and poor communication with transplant centers (OR: 0.580.760.98) were less likely to do so.ConclusionsEducators should prioritize transplant education strategies shown to be associated with increasing wait-listing rates.

Dataset Information

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Education Outside of Transplant Centers about Live Donor Transplantation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference.

Publications

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Education Outside of Transplant Centers about Live Donor Transplantation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure