Dataset Information

Process evaluation of specialist nurse implementation of a soft opt-out organ donation system in Wales.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Wales introduced a soft opt-out organ donation system on 1st December 2015 with the aim of improving consent rates. In the first 18 months consent rates improved but the difference could not solely be attributed to the soft opt-out system when compared with similar improvements in consent rates in other UK nations.

Methods

We conducted an 18 month post-intervention qualitative process evaluation involving 88 family members of 60/211 potential organ donor cases, and 19 professionals. Views and experiences of Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation who implemented the new system and family members who were involved in decision making were collected to see how their respective behaviours impacted on implementation. Data collection included interviews, focus groups and qualitative questionnaire data.

Results

Implementation was considered a success by Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation. The bespoke retraining programme and responsive approach to addressing initial implementation issues were identified as examples of best practice. Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation were valued by family members. Six implementation issues had an impact on consent rates - the media campaign had gaps, the system was more complex, challenges in changing professional behaviours, inability to obtain the required standard of evidence from family members to overturn a donation decision, increased complexity of consent processes, and additional health systems issues.

Conclusion

This is the first comprehensive process evaluation of implementing a soft opt-out system of organ donation. Specific elements of good implementation practice (such as investment in the retraining programme and the responsiveness of Specialist Nurses in Organ Donation and managers to feedback) were identified. The key message is that despite retraining, nursing practice did not radically change overnight to accommodate the new soft opt-out system. Policy makers and health service managers should not assume that nurses simply need more time to implement the soft-out as intended. Additional responsive modification of processes, ongoing training and support is required to help with implementation as originally intended. Scotland, England and the Netherlands are introducing soft opt-out systems. There is an opportunity to learn from initial implementation in Wales, by acknowledging gaps, good practice and opportunities to further improve processes and nursing practices.

SUBMITTER: Noyes J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6591913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the short-term impact of a soft opt-out organ donation system on consent rates and donor numbers.DesignBefore and after observational study using bespoke routinely collected data.SettingNational Health Service Blood and Transplant.Participants205 potential organ donor cases in Wales.InterventionsThe Act and implementation strategy.Primary and secondary outcomesConsent rates at 18 months post implementation compared with 3 previous years, and organ donor numbers 21 months before and after implementation. Changes in organ donor register activity post implementation for 18 months.ResultsThe consent rate for all modes of consent was 61.0% (125/205), showing a recovery from the dip to 45.8% in 2014/2015. 22.4% (46/205) were deemed consented donors: consent rate 60.8% (28/46). Compared with the 3 years before the switch there was a significant difference in Welsh consent rates (?2 p value=0.009). Over the same time period, rest of the UK consent rates also significantly increased from 58.6% (5256/8969) to 63.1% (2913/4614) (?2 p value<0.0001), therefore the Wales increase cannot be attributed to the Welsh legislation change. Deceased donors did not increase: 101 compared with 104. Organ donation registration increased from 34% to 38% with 6% registering to opt-out.ConclusionThis is the first rigorous initial evaluation with bespoke data collected on all cases. The longer-term impact on consent rates and donor numbers is unclear. Concerns about a potential backlash and mass opting out were not realised. The move to a soft opt-out system has not resulted in a step change in organ donation behaviour, but can be seen as the first step of a longer journey. Policymakers should not assume that soft opt-out systems by themselves simply need more time to have a meaningful effect. Ongoing interventions to further enhance implementation and the public's understanding of organ donation are needed to reach the 2020 target of 80% consent rates. Further longitudinal monitoring is required.

Project description:BACKGROUND:As organ donation registration rates remain low, especially among lower-educated people, it is important to support this group in making their registration decision. To prepare lower-educated students in the Netherlands for making a well-informed decision, an interactive educational program was developed. We aim to understand both the (quality of) implementation as well as to contextualize the effects of this program in a lower-educated school setting. METHODS:The process evaluation was part of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial, in which 11 schools for Intermediate Vocational Education throughout the Netherlands participated. Teachers who taught a course on Citizenship delivered three intervention elements (i.e. video fragments and discussion, quizzes with tailored feedback and an exercise filling out a registration form) to their students. Implementation was assessed by interviews with teachers, questionnaires from students, logbooks from teachers and user data from Google Analytics. RESULTS:The program was well received and implemented, but on-the-spot adaptations were made by teachers to fit their students better. Within the lower-educated target group, differences between students are high in terms of active participation, reading abilities, knowledge and attention span. The program fit well within their regular teaching activities, but the topic of organ donation is not always prioritized by teachers. CONCLUSIONS:We see opportunities to disseminate the program on a larger scale and reach a group that has been neglected in organ donation education before. Within the program, there are possibilities to increase the effectiveness of the program, such as alternative delivery methods for the elements with a lot of text, the addition of booster sessions and guidelines for teachers to adapt the program to students of different levels within Intermediate Vocational Education. Moreover, in order to have an impact on a national level, strategies need to be employed to reach high numbers of students and, therefore, support on a higher level is needed (both within schools and at policy level). TRIAL REGISTRATION:Dutch Trial Register, NTR6771. Prospectively registered on 24 October 2017.

Project description:BackgroundPreceded by a national media campaign, in May 2020, England switched to a soft opt-out system of organ donation which rests on the assumption that individuals meeting specific criteria have consented to organ donation unless they have expressed otherwise. We aimed to learn more about how the changes were communicated, how people responded and any discrepancies between key messages and how they were interpreted by the public.MethodsSummative content analysis of 286 stories and related reader-generated comments in leading UK online news sources (April 2019 to May 2021). Further detailed thematic analysis of 21 articles with reader-generated content, complemented by thematic content analysis coding of all 286 stories.ResultsMost media coverage on both organ donation and the law change was positive, with little variation over time or between publications. The importance of organ donation, benefits of the law change, and emotive stories (often involving children) of those who had donated an organ described as "superheroes" or those who had received organs as benefiting from a "miracle" were frequently cited. In contrast, reader-generated comments were markedly more negative, for example, focusing on loss of individual freedom and lack of trust in the organ donation system. Commentators wished to be able to choose who their organs were donated to, were dismissive and blaming towards minority ethnic groups, including undermining legitimate worries about the compatibility of organ donation with religious beliefs and end of life cultural norms, understanding and acceptance of brain-stem death and systemic racism. Misinformation including use of inflammatory language was common.ConclusionThe portrayal of donors and recipients as extraordinary is unlikely to help to normalise organ donation. Undermining legitimate concerns, in particular those from ethnic minorities, can alienate and encourage harmful misinformation in underrepresented groups. The discrepancies between the tone of the articles and the readers comments suggests a lack of trust across the public, health, policy and media outlets. Easily accessible, ongoing and tailored sources are needed to mitigate misinformation and disinformation and ensure key messages are better understood and accepted in order to realise the ambitions of soft opt-out organ donation policies.

Project description:Objectives To overcome the shortage of organ donors, Scotland and England are introducing an opt-out organ donor registration system in 2020. This means individuals will be automatically considered to consent for donation unless they actively opt-out of the register. Research has found that emotional barriers play a key role in donor decisions under opt-in legislation, yet little is known about factors that influence donor decisions under opt-out consent. Our objectives were to investigate attitudes towards organ donation and opt-out consent from individuals who plan to opt-out, and to explore the reasons why they plan to opt-out. Design Qualitative interview study. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 individuals from Scotland (n = 14) and England (n = 1) who self-reported the intention to opt-out of the register following the legislative change to opt-out. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Three main themes were identified: (1) consent versus coercion, which describes the perception of freedom of choice under an opt-in system and fears of 'government interference' and threatened autonomy under opt-out, (2) self-protection, encompassing fears of medical mistrust, bodily integrity concerns, and apprehension regarding the recipient selection process, and lastly, (3) 'riddled with pitfalls', which includes the notion that opt-out consent may increase susceptibility of stigma and reproach when registering an opt-out decision. Conclusions This study reinforces existing opt-in literature surrounding medical mistrust and bodily integrity concerns. A threat to one's autonomous choice and heightened reactance arising from perceptions of unwarranted government control have emerged as novel barriers. Statement of contribution What is already known about this subject? Although around 90% of individuals in the United Kingdom support organ donation, just 40% are actively registered as donors. As part of measures to improve rates of organ transplantation, Scotland and England are moving to an opt-out organ donation consent system in 2020. Existing research has shown that feelings and emotions are important factors that influence donor relevant decisions under the current opt-in system, but little research has explored potential deterrents under the new plans for opt-out consent. Minimizing the number of people opting out of the donor register is key to ensure sustained rates of transplantation. What does this study add? This study explored why people plan to opt-out of the new system in Scotland and England. Medical mistrust and bodily integrity concerns remain as salient barriers under opt-out laws. Fears of unwarranted government control and a perceived threat to one's freedom of choice emerged as a novel barrier.