ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The shortage of available organs for life-saving transplants persists worldwide. While a majority support donating their organs or tissue when they die, many have not registered their wish to do so. When registered, next of kin are much more likely to follow-through with the decision to donate. In many countries, most people visit their family physician office each year and this setting is a promising, yet underused, site where more people could register for deceased organ donation. Our primary aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention to promote organ donation registration in family physician's offices. METHODS: We developed an intervention to address barriers and enablers to organ donation registration that involved physician office reception staff inviting patients to register on a tablet in the waiting room while they waited for their appointment. We conducted a cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled registry trial to evaluate the intervention. We recruited six family physician offices in Canada. All offices began with usual care and then every two weeks, one office (randomly assigned) started the intervention until all offices delivered the intervention. The primary outcome was registration for deceased organ donation in the provincial organ registration registry, assessed within the 7 days of the physician visit. At the end of the trial, we also conducted interviews with clinic staff to assess any barriers and enablers to delivering the intervention. RESULTS: The trial involved 24,616 patient visits by 13,562 unique patients: 12,484 visits in the intervention period and 12,132 in the control period. There was no statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients registered for deceased organ donation in the intervention versus control period (48.0% vs 46.2%; absolute difference after accounting for the secular trend: 0.12%; 95% CI: - 2.30, 2.54; p=0.92). Interviews with clinic staff indicated location of the tablet within a waiting room, patient rapport, existing registration, confidence and motivation to deliver the intervention and competing priorities as barriers and enablers to delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention did not increase donor registration. Nonetheless, family physician offices may still remain a promising setting to develop and evaluate better interventions to increase organ donation registration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03213171.
Subject(s)
Physicians, Family , Tissue and Organ Procurement , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Registries , Waiting RoomsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: States, including Illinois, have passed legislation mandating the use of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes for reporting healthcare-associated infections, such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the sensitivity of ICD-9-CM code combinations for detection of MRSA infection and to understand implications for reporting. METHODS: We reviewed discharge and microbiology databases from July through August of 2005, 2006, and 2007 for ICD-9-CM codes or microbiology results suggesting MRSA infection at a tertiary care hospital near Chicago, Illinois. Medical records were reviewed to confirm MRSA infection. Time from admission to first positive MRSA culture result was evaluated to identify hospital-onset MRSA (HO-MRSA) infections. The sensitivity of MRSA code combinations for detecting confirmed MRSA infections was calculated using all codes present in the discharge record (up to 15); the effect of reviewing only 9 diagnosis codes, the number reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was also evaluated. The sensitivity of the combination of diagnosis codes for detection of HO-MRSA infections was compared with that for community-onset MRSA (CO-MRSA) infections. RESULTS: We identified 571 potential MRSA infections with the use of screening criteria; 403 (71%) were confirmed MRSA infections, of which 61 (15%) were classified as HO-MRSA. The sensitivity of MRSA code combinations was 59% for all confirmed MRSA infections when 15 diagnoses were reviewed compared with 31% if only 9 diagnoses were reviewed (P < .001). The sensitivity of code combinations was 33% for HO-MRSA infections compared with 62% for CO-MRSA infections (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting analysis to 9 diagnosis codes resulted in low sensitivity. Furthermore, code combinations were better at revealing CO-MRSA infections than HO-MRSA infections. These limitations could compromise the validity of ICD-9-CM codes for interfacility comparisons and for reporting of healthcare-associated MRSA infections.
