Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report.

Purpose of program: A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day. Sources of information: The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics. Methods: Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions. Key findings: The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic. Limitations: Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward. Implications: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

Objectifs du programme: Devenir donneur de rein vivant est difficile, le principal obstacle étant le processus d'évaluation inefficace auquel les candidats doivent se soumettre. Ce processus comporte plus de 30 examens (p. ex. tests de laboratoire et tests diagnostiques), questionnaires et consultations avec des spécialistes. Les candidats donneurs font plusieurs visites dans les hôpitaux et cliniques, et passent souvent plusieurs mois à attendre des rendez-vous et des résultats de tests. En Ontario (Canada), le délai médian pour l'évaluation d'un candidat au don est de près d'un an. Les temps d'attente plus longs sont associés à de moins bons résultats pour les receveurs d'une greffe rénale, ainsi qu'à des coûts de soins de santé plus élevés. Un processus d'évaluation plus court et plus efficace des donneurs potentiels permettrait à un plus grand nombre de patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale de recevoir une greffe, y compris une greffe préventive (c.-à-d. permettant d'éviter la dialyse). Cet article décrit une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité visant à augmenter l'efficience, l'efficacité et la personnalisation du processus d'évaluation des candidats au don. Nous avons développé une clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants (One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic), soit une clinique condensée où les candidats passent tous les tests et consultent un spécialiste dans la même journée. Sources de l'information: La clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants a été développée à la suite d'un examen approfondi de la littérature, de la consultation des commentaires de patients ayant donné avec succès et de rencontres avec les dirigeants du programme de transplantation du St Joseph's Healthcare d'Hamilton. Une équipe multipartite a été formée; celle-ci réunit du personnel soignant en néphrologie, chirurgie de transplantation, radiologie, cardiologie, travail social et médecine nucléaire, ainsi que des patients ayant une expérience vécue du don de rein. L'équipe s'est réunie régulièrement pendant les étapes de planification pour déterminer les objectifs, les paramètres et le calendrier de la clinique, ainsi que les critères de participation et le flux de patients. Méthodologie: Les donneurs potentiels qui avaient complété les tests de laboratoire initiaux et qui acceptaient de se soumettre à un processus accéléré ont été évalués à la clinique d'un jour. Si des tests supplémentaires étaient nécessaires, ceux-ci étaient effectués un autre jour. Les candidats ont été rencontrés par le néphrologue, le chirurgien de transplantation et le coordonnateur des dons environ deux semaines après leur visite à la clinique pour l'approbation finale. L'équipe multipartite continue de se réunir régulièrement pour examiner les commentaires des donneurs, discuter des défis et trouver des solutions. Principaux résultats: La clinique d'un jour, mise sur pied en mars 2019, est en activité depuis quatre ans et permet des améliorations itératives grâce à la rétroaction continue des patients et des soignants. À ce jour, plus de 150 candidats au don ont été évalués à la clinique. Les commentaires des donneurs sont quasi unanimement positifs (98 % des candidats ont déclaré être très satisfaits de la clinique), la plupart soulignant l'efficacité de la clinique et les conséquences minimes du processus sur les obligations professionnelles et familiales. La direction de l'hôpital, tout comme les professionnels de la santé des services participants, continue d'appuyer la clinique d'un jour et de collaborer à la création d'une expérience fluide pour les donneurs potentiels qui la fréquentent. Limites: Les places à la clinique sont limitées; ainsi, certains candidats au don d'un rein vivant pourraient ne pas pouvoir être admis dans le mois où ils se présentent à la clinique. Conclusion: Cette intervention d'amélioration de la qualité axée sur les patients est conçue pour augmenter l'efficacité du processus d'évaluation et bonifier l'expérience des donneurs de rein vivants. Elle vise également à améliorer les résultats des receveurs d'une greffe rénale et, potentiellement, augmenter le don vivant. La prochaine étape sera une évaluation formelle de la clinique, c'est-à-dire la mesure de la rétroaction qualitative des professionnels de la santé qui y travaillent et des candidats au don qui la fréquentent, et l'analyse des processus clés et des résultats des candidats évalués à la clinique d'un jour par rapport à ceux qui suivent le processus d'évaluation habituel. Cette évaluation du programme fournira des données probantes fiables et propres à la région qui pourront informer les centres de transplantation de tout le pays qui envisagent d'intégrer un processus d'évaluation similaire.

Defining pre-emptive living kidney donor transplantation as a quality indicator.

Quality indicators in kidney transplants are needed to identify care gaps and improve access to transplants. We used linked administrative health care databases to examine multiple ways of defining pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants, including different patient cohorts and censoring definitions. We included adults from Ontario, Canada with advanced chronic kidney disease between January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We created 4 unique incident patient cohorts, varying the eligibility by the risk of progression to kidney failure and whether individuals had a recorded contraindication to kidney transplant (eg, home oxygen use). We explored the effect of 4 censoring event definitions. Across the 4 cohorts, size varied substantially from 20 663 to 9598 patients, with the largest reduction (a 43% reduction) occurring when we excluded patients with ≥1 recorded contraindication to kidney transplantation. The incidence rate (per 100 person-years) of pre-emptive living donor kidney transplant varied across cohorts from 1.02 (95% CI: 0.91-1.14) for our most inclusive cohort to 2.21 (95% CI: 1.96-2.49) for the most restrictive cohort. Our methods can serve as a framework for developing other quality indicators in kidney transplantation and monitoring and improving access to pre-emptive living donor kidney transplants in health care systems.

Effect of a Novel Multicomponent Intervention to Improve Patient Access to Kidney Transplant and Living Kidney Donation: The EnAKT LKD Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) have the best chance for a longer and healthier life if they receive a kidney transplant. However, many barriers prevent patients from receiving a transplant. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of a multicomponent intervention designed to target several barriers that prevent eligible patients from completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, open-label, registry-based, superiority, cluster randomized clinical trial included all 26 CKD programs in Ontario, Canada, from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. These programs provide care for patients with advanced CKD (patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis). Interventions: Using stratified, covariate-constrained randomization, allocation of the CKD programs at a 1:1 ratio was used to compare the multicomponent intervention vs usual care for 4.2 years. The intervention had 4 main components, (1) administrative support to establish local quality improvement teams; (2) transplant educational resources; (3) an initiative for transplant recipients and living donors to share stories and experiences; and (4) program-level performance reports and oversight by administrative leaders. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of steps completed toward receiving a kidney transplant. Each patient could complete up to 4 steps: step 1, referred to a transplant center for evaluation; step 2, had a potential living donor contact a transplant center for evaluation; step 3, added to the deceased donor waitlist; and step 4, received a transplant from a living or deceased donor. Results: The 26 CKD programs (13 intervention, 13 usual care) during the trial period included 20 375 potentially transplant-eligible patients with advanced CKD (intervention group [n = 9780 patients], usual-care group [n = 10 595 patients]). Despite evidence of intervention uptake, the step completion rate did not significantly differ between the intervention vs usual-care groups: 5334 vs 5638 steps; 24.8 vs 24.1 steps per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.87-1.15). Conclusions and Relevance: This novel multicomponent intervention did not significantly increase the rate of completed steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Improving access to transplantation remains a global priority that requires substantial effort. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03329521.

Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD): Statistical Analysis Plan of a Registry-Based, Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) is a quality improvement intervention designed to enhance access to kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. We conducted a cluster-randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of the intervention versus usual care on completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant. Objective: To prespecify the statistical analysis plan for the EnAKT LKD trial. Design: The EnAKT LKD trial is a pragmatic, 2-arm, parallel-group, registry-based, open-label, cluster-randomized, superiority, clinical trial. Randomization was performed at the level of the chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (the "clusters"). Setting: Twenty-six CKD programs in Ontario, Canada. Participants: More than 10 000 patients with advanced CKD (ie, patients approaching the need for dialysis or receiving maintenance dialysis) with no recorded contraindication to receiving a kidney transplant. Methods: The trial data (including patient characteristics and outcomes) will be obtained from linked administrative health care databases (the "registry"). Stratified covariate-constrained randomization was used to allocate the 26 CKD programs (1:1) to provide the intervention or usual care from November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021 (4.17 years). CKD programs in the intervention arm received the following: (1) support for local quality improvement teams and administrative needs; (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. Outcomes: The primary outcome is completing key steps toward receiving a kidney transplant, where up to 4 unique steps per patient will be considered: (1) patient referred to a transplant center for evaluation, (2) a potential living kidney donor begins their evaluation at a transplant center to donate a kidney to the patient, (3) patient added to the deceased donor transplant waitlist, and (4) patient receives a kidney transplant from a living or deceased donor. Analysis plan: Using an intent-to-treat approach, the primary outcome will be analyzed using a patient-level constrained multistate model adjusting for the clustering in CKD programs. Trial Status: The EnAKT LKD trial period is November 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. We expect to analyze and report the results once the data for the trial period is available in linked administrative health care databases. Trial Registration: The EnAKT LKD trial is registered with the U.S. National Institute of Health at clincaltrials.gov (NCT03329521 available at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03329521). Statistical Analytic Plan: Version 1.0 August 26, 2022.

Contexte: EnAKT LKD est une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité visant à améliorer l'accès à la transplantation rénale et au don vivant de rein. Nous avons mené un essai clinique randomisé par grappes afin d'évaluer l'effet de l'intervention, par rapport aux soins habituels, sur le taux d'étapes clés réalisées dans le processus de réception d'une greffe de rein. Objectif: Exposer les grandes lignes du plan d'analyse statistique de l'essai EAKT LKD. Conception: EAKT LKD est un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, basé sur un registre, et randomisé en grappes. La randomisation a été réalisée au niveau des programmes d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) (les « grappes ¼). Cadre: 26 programmes d'IRC en Ontario (Canada). Sujets: Plus de 10 000 patients atteints d'IRC de stade avancé (des patients approchant le besoin de dialyse ou recevant une hémodialyse d'entretien) sans contre-indication documentée à la greffe rénale. Méthodologie: Les données de l'essai (y compris les caractéristiques et les résultats des patients) seront obtenues à partir de bases de données administratives en santé (le « registre ¼). La randomisation stratifiée avec contraintes de covariables a servi à répartir les 26 programmes d'IRC (1:1) selon qu'ils allaient fournir l'intervention ou les soins habituels entre le 1er novembre 2017 et le 31 décembre 2021 (4,17 ans). Les programmes d'IRC du bras d'intervention ont eu droit au soutien suivant: (1) des équipes locales d'amélioration de la qualité et du soutien administratif; (2) de l'information et des ressources sur mesure pour le personnel, les patients et les donneurs vivants; (3) du soutien de la part de receveurs et de donneurs vivants; et (4) des rapports sur le rendement au niveau du programme et une surveillance assurée par les chefs de programme. Résultats: Le principal critère d'évaluation est le taux d'étapes clés accomplies vers la réception d'une greffe de rein, où jusqu'à quatre étapes uniques par patient seront comptabilisées: (1) le patient est aiguillé vers un centre de transplantation pour évaluation; (2) un possible donneur vivant de rein contacte un centre de transplantation pour un receveur en particulier et amorce son évaluation; (3) le patient est ajouté à la liste d'attente pour une transplantation d'un donneur décédé, et (4) le patient reçoit une greffe de rein d'un donneur vivant ou décédé. Plan d'analyse: Selon une approche fondée sur l'intention de traiter, le critère d'évaluation principal sera analysé au niveau du patient en utilisant un modèle multiétats contraint, corrigé dans les programmes d'IRC en fonction du regroupement. Statut de l'essai: L'essai EnAKT LKD s'est tenu du 1er novembre 2017 au 31 décembre 2021. Nous analyserons les résultats et en rendrons compte dès que les données seront disponibles dans les bases de données administratives couplées du système de santé.

Partnering with Patients to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation.

Kidney transplantation gives many patients with kidney failure a longer and healthier life. Unfortunately, some transplant-eligible patients will never receive one. In this paper, we describe how patients and researchers collaborated on new strategies and programs to enhance access to kidney transplantation and living kidney donation. These efforts led to the creation of the Transplant Ambassador Program (TAP). TAP is a patient-led program that helps connect patients who have kidney failure to individuals who have successfully received a kidney transplant or donated a kidney. We also detail barriers, facilitators and lessons learned from engaging patients in research.

Protocol for a Process Evaluation of the Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Many patients who would benefit from a kidney transplant never receive one. The Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) pragmatic, cluster-randomized clinical trial is testing whether a multi-component quality improvement intervention, provided in chronic kidney disease (CKD) programs (vs. usual care), can help patients with CKD with no recorded contraindications to kidney transplant complete more steps toward receiving a transplant (primary outcome of the trial). The EnAKT LKD intervention has 4 components: (1) quality Improvement teams and administrative support, (2) improved transplant education for patients and healthcare providers, (3) access to support and (4) program-level performance monitoring. Objective: To conduct a process evaluation of the EnAKT LKD quality improvement intervention to determine if the components were delivered, received, and enacted as designed (fidelity), and if the intervention addressed intended barriers (mechanisms of change). Design: A mixed-methods process evaluation informed by new practice implementation and theories of behavior change. Setting: Chronic kidney disease programs in Ontario, Canada, began receiving the EnAKT LKD intervention on November 1, 2017 and will continue to receive it until December 31, 2021. The process evaluation (interviews and surveys) will occur alongside the trial, between December 2020 to May 2021. Participants: Healthcare providers (eg, dialysis nurses, nephrologists, members of the multi-care kidney clinic team) at Ontario's 27 CKD programs. Methods: We will survey and interview healthcare providers at each CKD program, and complete an intervention implementation checklist. Quantitative data from the surveys and the intervention implementation checklist will assess fidelity to the intervention, while quantitative and qualitative data from surveys and interviews will provide insight into the mechanisms of change. Limitations: The long trial period may result in poor participant recall. Conclusion: This process evaluation will enhance interpretation of the trial findings, guide improvements in the intervention components, and inform future implementation. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT03329521.

Contexte: Plusieurs patients qui pourraient tirer profit d'une greffe de rein n'en reçoivent jamais une. L'essai clinique pragmatique et randomisé par grappes EnAKT LKD (Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation) vise l'amélioration de l'accès à la transplantation rénale et au don de rein vivant. L'essai examine une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité (par rapport aux soins habituels) à composantes multiples réalisée dans le cadre des programs d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) afin de déterminer si elle peut aider les patients atteints d'une néphropathie chronique sans contre-indications documentées à une greffe rénale à franchir davantage d'étapes vers la réception d'une greffe (principal critère d'évaluation de l'essai). L'intervention EAKT LKD comporte quatre composantes : 1) les équipes d'amélioration de la qualité et le soutien administratif; 2) l'amélioration de l'éducation sur la transplantation destinée aux patients et aux fournisseurs de soins; 3) l'accès au soutien; et 4) le suivi du rendement à l'échelle du program. Objectif: L'évaluation du processus de l'intervention d'amélioration de la qualité EnAKT LKD vise deux objectifs : déterminer si les composants ont été livrés, reçus et mis en œuvre comme prévu (fidélité) et vérifier si l'intervention a permis d'éliminer les obstacles prévus (mécanismes de changement). Type d'étude: Une évaluation de processus à méthodes mixtes fondée sur les théories concernant la mise en œuvre de nouvelles pratiques et les changements de comportement. Cadre: Les programs d'IRC ontariens (Canada) ont commencé à recevoir l'intervention EnAKT LKD le 1er novembre 2017 et ont continué de la recevoir jusqu'au 31 décembre 2021. L'évaluation du processus (sondages et entretiens) s'est effectuée parallèlement à l'essai, de décembre 2020 à mai 2021. Participants: Les fournisseurs de soins (infirmières en dialyze, néphrologues, membres du personnel des cliniques multidisciplinaires en santé rénale) des 27 programs d'IRC ontariens. Méthodologie: Nous allons sonder et interroger les fournisseurs de soins de chaque program d'IRC et nous complèterons une liste vérifiant la mise en œuvre de l'intervention. Les données quantitatives tirées des sondages et listes de vérification permettront d'évaluer la fidélité à l'intervention, alors que les données quantitatives et qualitatives extraites des sondages et des entretiens fourniront un aperçu des mécanismes de changement. Limites: La longue période de l'essai pourrait rendre difficile le rappel des participants. Conclusion: Cette évaluation du processus permettra d'améliorer l'interprétation des résultats de l'essai et de guider l'amélioration des composantes de l'intervention, en plus d'éclairer de futures mises en œuvre. Enregistrement de l'essai: ClinicalTrials.gov; identifiant : NCT03329521.

A Quality Improvement Intervention to Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD) in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Clinical Research Protocol of a Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.

CONTEXTE: Plusieurs patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale vivront plus longtemps et en meilleure santé s'ils reçoivent une greffe de rein plutôt que des traitements de dialyze. De nombreux obstacles empêchent cependant les patients d'accéder à la transplantation. OBJECTIF: Déterminer si une intervention visant l'amélioration de la qualité menée dans les programs d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) permettrait à davantage de patients sans contre-indications à une greffe d'aller plus loin (comparativement aux soins habituels) dans le processus menant à la transplantation. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Ce protocole décrit un essai clinique pragmatique ouvert, à deux bras, en groupes parallèles, à répartition aléatoire en grappes et fondé sur un registre ­ l'essai Enhance Access to Kidney Transplantation and Living Kidney Donation (EnAKT LKD). CADRE: Les 26 programs d'IRC de l'Ontario (Canada). L'essai a débuté le 1er novembre 2017 et devait initialement se terminer le 31 mars 2021 (3,4 ans); cette date a été reportée au 31 décembre 2021 (4,1 ans) en raison de la pandémie de COVID-19. SUJETS: Au cours de l'essai, on estime que les 26 programs d'IRC prendront en charge plus de 10 000 adultes atteints d'IRC (y compris des patients approchant le besoin de dialyze et des patients dialysés) sans contre-indications à une greffe. INTERVENTIONS: Les programs ont été répartis aléatoirement pour intégrer une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité ou pour prodiguer les soins habituels. L'intervention consiste en quatre composantes principales: (1) des équipes locales d'amélioration de la qualité et de soutien administratif; (2) de l'information et des ressources sur mesure pour le personnel, les patients et les donneurs vivants; (3) du soutien pour les receveurs et les donneurs vivants; et (4) des rapports sur le rendement au niveau du program et une surveillance assurée par les chefs de program. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Le principal critère d'évaluation est le nombre d'étapes clés complétées en vue de la réception d'une greffe de rein tel qu'analysé au niveau de la grappe (program d'IRC). Pour chaque patient, quatre étapes spécifiques seront comptabilisées: (I) le patient est aiguillé vers un center de transplantation pour évaluation; (II) au moins un donneur vivant de rein contacte un center de transplantation pour un receveur en particulier et amorce son évaluation en remplissant un questionnaire sur ses antécédents médicaux; (III) le patient est ajouté à la liste d'attente pour une transplantation d'un donneur décédé, et (IV) le patient reçoit une greffe de rein d'un donneur vivant ou décédé. PRINCIPALE ANALYZE ENVISAGÉE: Les données sont tirées des bases de données administratives du système de santé ontarien. Une analyze en intention de traiter sera effectuée en comparant le principal critère d'évaluation entre les groupes répartis aléatoirement à l'aide d'une approche en deux étapes. Première étape: obtention de valeurs résiduelles en adaptant un modèle de régression aux variables de niveau individuel et en ignorant les effets de l'intervention et du regroupement. Deuxième étape: les valeurs résiduelles de la première étape agrégées au niveau du groupe constitueront le résultat. LIMITES: Il pourrait ne pas être possible d'isoler les effets indépendants de chaque composante de l'intervention. L'équipe prodiguant les soins habituels pourrait adopter des composantes de l'intervention menant à un biais de contamination. Le nombre relativement faible de groupes pourrait signifier que les deux bras ne sont pas équilibrés sur tous les facteurs pronostiques de base. CONCLUSION: L'essai EnAKT LKD fournira des données de haute qualité sur la question de savoir si une intervention à composantes multiples visant l'amélioration de la qualité aide effectivement les patients à franchir davantage d'étapes vers une transplantation rénale.

Defining the Scope of Knowledge Translation Within a National, Patient-Oriented Kidney Research Network.

PURPOSE OF PROGRAM: Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) is a collaborative approach whereby knowledge created through health research is utilized in ways that are relevant to the needs of all stakeholders. However, research teams have limited capacity and know-how for achieving IKT, resulting in a disconnect between the generation and application of knowledge. The goal of this report is to describe how IKT research was achieved across a large-scale, patient-oriented research network, Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease (Can-SOLVE CKD). SOURCES OF INFORMATION: Resources to facilitate knowledge translation (KT) planning across the network were developed by the Can-SOLVE CKD Knowledge User/Knowledge Translation Committee with reference to established Canadian KT and patient engagement tools and frameworks, review of the published and gray literature, and expertise of committee members. METHODS: The Can-SOLVE CKD Knowledge User/Knowledge Translation Committee consisting of patient partners, health care providers, policymakers, and researchers provided oversight of the development and implementation of the network's IKT initiatives. Guided by its strategic framework, the committee developed KT planning templates and review checklists to assist network projects with preparing for dissemination, implementation, and scale and spread of their interventions. The committee has acted in a consultative capacity to facilitate IKT across network initiatives and has supported capacity building through KT activities aimed at network membership and knowledge users more broadly. KEY FINDINGS: The Can-SOLVE CKD Knowledge User/Knowledge Translation Committee established a nation-wide strategy for KT infrastructure and capacity building. Acting as a knowledge intermediary, the committee has connected research teams with knowledge users across Canada to support practices and policies informed by evidence generated by the network. The committee has developed KT initiatives, including a Community of Practice, whereby participants across different regions and disciplines convene regularly to share health research knowledge and communications strategies relevant to the network. Critically, patients are engaged and contribute throughout the research process. Examples of IKT activities from select projects are provided, as well as ways for sustaining the network's KT platform. LIMITATIONS: The KT resources developed by the committee were adapted from other established resources to meet the needs of the network and have not undergone formal evaluation in this context. Given the broad scope of the network, resources to facilitate implementation and knowledge user engagement may not meet the needs of all initiatives and must be tailored accordingly. Knowledge barriers, including a lack of information and skills related to conceptual and practical aspects of KT, among network members provided a rationale for various KT capacity-building initiatives. IMPLICATIONS: The approach described here offers a practical method for achieving IKT, including how to plan, implement, and sustain initiatives across large-scale health research networks. Within the context of Can-SOLVE CKD, these efforts will shorten knowledge-practice gaps through producing and applying relevant research to improve the lives of people living with kidney disease.

OBJECTIF DU PROGRAMME: L'application intégrée des connaissances (AIC) est une approche collaborative à répondre aux besoins de tous les intervenants. Les équipes de recherche ont cependant une capacité et un savoir-faire limités pour réaliser l'AIC, ce qui entraîne un décalage entre la production et l'application des connaissances. L'objectif de cet article est de décrire comment la recherche sur l'AIC a été réalisée dans le cadre d'un vaste réseau de recherche axée sur le patient, le réseau CAN-SOLVE CKD (Canadians Seeking Solutions and Innovations to Overcome Chronic Kidney Disease). SOURCES: Les ressources visant à faciliter la planification de l'application des connaissances (AC) dans l'ensemble du réseau ont été élaborées par le Comité des utilisateurs/de l'application des connaissances (Knowledge User/Knowledge Translation Committee) de Can-SOLVE CKD en se référant à des outils et des cadres d'AC et de participation des patients établis au Canada, à l'examen de la documentation publiée et de la littérature grise et à l'expertise des membres du comité. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Le Comité des utilisateurs/de l'application des connaissances de CAN-SOLVE, constitué de partenaires patients, de fournisseurs de soins, de décideurs et de chercheurs, a supervisé le développement et la mise en œuvre des initiatives d'AIC du réseau. Guidé par son cadre stratégique, le comité a élaboré des modèles de planification pour l'AC et des listes de vérification pour aider les projets du réseau à se préparer à la diffusion et à la mise en œuvre de leurs interventions, de même qu'à leur élargissement et leur diffusion. Le comité a agi à titre consultatif pour faciliter l'AIC dans l'ensemble des initiatives du réseau, et a appuyé le renforcement des capacités par le biais d'activités d'AC destinées aux membres du réseau et, plus largement, aux utilisateurs des connaissances. PRINCIPAUX RÉSULTATS: Le Comité des utilisateurs/de l'application des connaissances de CAN-SOLVE a établi une stratégie nationale pour l'infrastructure et le renforcement des capacités en matière d'AC. En tant qu'intermédiaire, le comité a mis en relation des équipes de recherche et des utilisateurs des connaissances partout au Canada afin d'appuyer les pratiques et les politiques fondées sur les données probantes produites par le réseau. Le comité a élaboré des initiatives d'AC, notamment une communauté de pratique où les participants des différentes régions et disciplines se réunissent sur une base régulière pour partager les connaissances générées en recherche et les stratégies de communication pertinentes pour le réseau. Il est essentiel que les patients s'engagent et contribuent tout au long du processus de recherche. Des exemples d'activités d'AIC tirés de projets sélectionnés sont fournis, de même que des moyens de maintenir la plateforme d'AC du réseau. LIMITES: Les ressources d'AC développées par le comité ont été adaptées à partir de ressources établies pour répondre aux besoins du réseau et, dans ce contexte, n'ont pas fait l'objet d'une évaluation officielle. Compte tenu de la vaste portée du réseau, les ressources destinées à faciliter la mise en œuvre et la participation des utilisateurs des connaissances pourraient ne pas répondre aux besoins de toutes les initiatives et devraient être adaptées en conséquence. Les freins à la connaissance parmi les membres du réseau, notamment le manque d'information et de compétences liées aux aspects conceptuels et pratiques de l'AC, ont servi de justification à diverses initiatives de renforcement des capacités en matière d'AC. CONCLUSION: L'approche décrite offre une méthode pratique pour parvenir à l'AIC, notamment dans la façon de planifier, de mettre en œuvre et d'appuyer des initiatives dans les réseaux de recherche d'envergure. Dans le contexte de CAN-SOLVE CKD, ces efforts permettront de réduire les écarts entre les connaissances et les pratiques, en produisant et en appliquant des recherches visant l'amélioration de la vie des personnes atteintes de néphropathies.

"A Taste of Real Medicine": Third Year Medical Students' Report Experiences of Early Workplace Encounters.

INTRODUCTION: Medical students extend their preparatory learning on entering the clinical work environment, by joining their clinical team as peripheral participants and start to care for "real" patients. This learning is situated, experiential, varied, mainly unstructured, highly dependent on clinical opportunities (affordances), and students' motivation to learn (learner agency). Students ideally contribute to workplace activities, which allow their practical skills, confidence and professional identity to evolve. This study sought to investigate senior students' perspectives in their early stages of workplace learning, by using social learning theory as a framework. The focus is on team integration, practical skills performance, professional development and their evolving professional identity. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2018, we conducted five focus groups, with a total of 36 volunteers, out of a possible 200 (18% Stage 3 (Year 3)) medical students. Each focus group session was audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants were de-identified, and framework analysis used the theoretical frameworks of communities of practice, and workplace affordances to gain insight into their work-place learning experience during the first two months of their clinical rotation. RESULTS: Thirty-six students out of 200 (18%) attended focus groups over a four-year period. The results are presented using the theoretical frameworks of community of practice and workplace affordances and presented as themes of: meaning, "learning as experience", practice, "learning as doing" community, "learning as belonging", and identity, "learning as becoming". DISCUSSION: Participants reported many positive examples of workplace learning while dealing directly with patients. Students were also exposed to ethical dilemmas and unexpected risks in the workplace. These included lack of site orientation, unsupportive teams, lack of supervision, and students' inability to initiate agency, all of which contributed to their workplace uncertainty. Performing manageable tasks for their team provided a role in their community of practice, strengthening their identity as evolving doctors. Exposure to both positive and negative role models allowed students to reflect on ethical issues, further extending their own professional identities. SUMMARY: Participants were quick to observe and report workplace dynamics as they were exposed to the positive and negative aspects of the hidden curriculum. This allowed them to reflect on patient safety, and ethical concerns promoting the development of their professional identity.

A RAND-Modified Delphi on Key Indicators to Measure the Efficiency of Living Kidney Donor Candidate Evaluations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many patients, providers, and potential living donors perceive the living kidney donor evaluation process to be lengthy and difficult to navigate. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We sought consensus on key terms and process and outcome indicators that can be used to measure how efficiently a transplant center evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor. Using a RAND-modified Delphi method, 77 participants (kidney transplant recipients or recipient candidates, living kidney donors or donor candidates, health care providers, and health care administrators) completed an online survey to define the terms and indicators. The definitions were then further refined during an in-person meeting with ten stakeholders. RESULTS: We identified 16 process indicators (e.g., average time to evaluate a donor candidate), eight outcome indicators (e.g., annual number of preemptive living kidney donor transplants), and two measures that can be considered both process and outcome indicators (e.g., average number of times a candidate visited the transplant center for the evaluation). Transplant centers wishing to implement this set of indicators will require 22 unique data elements, all of which are either readily available or easily collected prospectively. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of indicators through a consensus-based approach that may be used to monitor and improve the performance of a transplant center in how efficiently it evaluates persons interested in becoming a living kidney donor.

The impact on internship of a tailored intern preparation package.

INTRODUCTION: On commencing internship, new medical graduates (new interns) are often required to perform core procedural skills under differing levels of supervision. This variability of knowledge and experience with procedural skills can place patient safety at risk. Consequently, in 2012, we developed a targeted, intensive, 3-day training course for our pre-intern (PrInt) students. The aim of this study was to evaluate the intern preparation package by exploring interns' self-reported knowledge, confidence, and experience in key procedural skills during the early months of internship. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2016, 5 cohorts of PrInt students (n=223) participated in our course. In the following years 2013-2017, the same 5 cohorts, at 4-5 months into their internship, were surveyed anonymously and invited to attend focus groups. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyze data. RESULTS: Of the 223 interns, 91 (41%) responded. Of the 91, 82 (93%) agreed that the intern preparation package provided during PrInt had been beneficial to their practice as an intern. Awareness of potential risks to patient safety was high, ranging from infection control at 89/89 (100%) to 87/90 (97%) for patient identification. Confidence in performing procedural skills varied from moderate in identifying nasogastric tube placement on X-ray (66/89; 85%), to equal least confidence in managing cardiac-related emergencies (53/90; 59%) and identifying the correct placement of peripherally inserted central catheter lines on X-ray (52/89; 58%). MAJOR QUALITATIVE FINDINGS: The preparation package had refreshed interns' procedural skills ability and awareness of risks to patient safety. Integration into the clinical team was positive, but requests to perform procedural skills on day 1 was unexpected. CONCLUSION: Interns reported that they had gained substantial benefit from their preparation package, and they performed practical procedures from day 1, further highlighting the need for an intensive preparation course immediately prior to entering internship.

Initiating Maintenance Dialysis Before Living Kidney Donor Transplantation When a Donor Candidate Evaluation Is Well Underway.

BACKGROUND: Preemptive kidney transplants result in better outcomes and patient experiences than transplantation after dialysis onset. It is unknown how often a person initiates maintenance dialysis before living kidney donor transplantation when their donor candidate evaluation is well underway. METHODS: Using healthcare databases, we retrospectively studied 478 living donor kidney transplants from 2004 to 2014 across 5 transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, where the recipients were not receiving dialysis when their donor's evaluation was well underway. We also explored some factors associated with a higher likelihood of dialysis initiation before transplant. RESULTS: A total of 167 (35%) of 478 persons with kidney failure initiated dialysis in a median of 9.7 months (25th-75th percentile, 5.4-18.7 months) after their donor candidate began their evaluation and received dialysis for a median of 8.8 months (3.6-16.9 months) before kidney transplantation. The total cohort's dialysis cost was CAD $8.1 million, and 44 (26%) of 167 recipients initiated their dialysis urgently in hospital. The median total donor evaluation time (time from evaluation start to donation) was 10.6 months (6.4-21.6 months) for preemptive transplants and 22.4 months (13.1-38.7 months) for donors whose recipients started dialysis before transplant. Recipients were more likely to start dialysis if their donor was female, nonwhite, lived in a lower-income neighborhood, and if the transplant center received the recipient referral later. CONCLUSION: 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.

Potential implications of a more timely living kidney donor evaluation.

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.

Duration of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Evaluations: Findings From 2 Multicenter Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND: A prolonged living kidney donor evaluation may result in worse outcomes for transplant recipients. Better knowledge of the duration of this process may help inform future donors and identify opportunities for improvement. STUDY DESIGN: 1 prospective and 1 retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: At 16 Canadian and Australian transplantation centers (prospective cohort) and 5 Ontario transplantation centers (retrospective cohort), we assessed the duration of living kidney donor evaluation and explored donor, recipient, and transplantation factors associated with longer evaluation times. Data were obtained from 2 sources: donor medical records using chart abstraction and health care administrative databases. PREDICTORS: Donor and recipient demographics, direct versus paired donation, center-level variables. OUTCOMES: Duration of living donor evaluation. RESULTS: The median total duration of transplantation evaluation (time from when the candidate started the evaluation until donation) was 10.3 (IQR, 6.5-16.7) months. The median duration from evaluation start until approval to donate was 7.9 (IQR, 4.6-14.1) months, and from approval until donation was 0.7 (IQR, 0.3-2.4) months, respectively. The median time between the first and last consultation among donors who completed a nephrology, surgery, and psychosocial assessment in the prospective cohort was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.3) months, and between computed tomography angiography and donation was 4.8 (IQR, 2.6-9.2) months. After adjustment, the total duration of transplantation evaluation was longer if the donor participated in paired donation (6.6 [95% CI, 1.6-9.7] months) and if the recipient was referred later relative to the donor's evaluation start date (0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0] months [per month of delayed referral]). Results depended on whether the recipient was receiving dialysis. LIMITATIONS: Living donor candidates who did not donate were not included and proxy measures were used for some dates in the donor evaluation process. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Evaluation of a Hockey Deceased Organ Donation Awareness Campaign: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The Kidney Foundation of Canada developed a pilot campaign to educate persons attending junior hockey league games in London, Ontario, Canada, on deceased organ donation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a hockey campaign on the number of new organ and tissue donor registrants. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Residents of London, Ontario. PATIENTS: We included 255 476 individuals eligible to register for organ donation with a London, Ontario postal code. MEASUREMENTS: We compared the number of new deceased organ donor registrants in London, Ontario, during the campaign period (March 12 to April 16, 2015) with 3 different time periods (December 30, 2014 to February 3, 2015; February 4 to March 11, 2015; April 17 to May 22, 2015). We also compared registration rates in London with 2 Ontario cities (Kitchener-Waterloo and Hamilton) matching in a 1:1 ratio on age, sex, and income quintile. METHODS: To compare registrations across time periods, we used binomial regression with an identity link function and generalized estimating equations with an independence correlation structure. We used modified Poisson regression to compare registration rates between cities. RESULTS: During the campaign period, there were slightly more registrations (1218 registered of 252 832 unregistered individuals [0.48%]) compared with an earlier time period (risk difference: 0.09%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05%-0.12%). However, there was no significant difference compared with 2 time periods immediately before and after the campaign. London had slightly more registrations during the campaign period compared with the matched city of Hamilton (1180 registered of 236 582 unregistered individuals [0.50%] vs 490 registered of 236 582 unregistered individuals [0.21%]; risk ratio: 2.41; 95% CI: 2.17-2.68). The registration rate in London did not significantly differ from Kitchener-Waterloo. LIMITATIONS: Unable to conclude whether the minor increase in deceased organ donor registration was the result of the campaign or other factors (e.g., simultaneous organ registration events, seasonality). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, a minor increase in deceased organ donor registration was observed during the hockey organ donation awareness campaign; however, the specific impact of the campaign on organ donor registration could not be determined.

CONTEXTE: La Fondation canadienne du rein a développé une campagne pilote pour sensibiliser les gens qui assistent à des matchs de hockey junior à London en Ontario (Canada) sur le don d'organes post-mortem. OBJECTIF DE L'ÉTUDE: Évaluer l'impact qu'une campagne de sensibilisation auprès des gens assistant à des parties de hockey pouvait avoir sur le nombre de nouvelles inscriptions à la liste des donneurs d'organes et de tissus. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Il s'agit d'une étude rétrospective de cohorte menée au sein de la population. CADRE DE L'ÉTUDE: L'étude a été réalisée auprès de résidents de London en Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Nous avons inclus un total de 255 476 individus ayant un code postal inscrit à London en Ontario et qui étaient admissibles à faire un don d'organe. MESURES: Nous avons répertorié le nombre de nouvelles inscriptions à la liste de donneurs d'organes à London en Ontario au cours de la période de la campagne, soit du 12 mars au 16 avril 2015. Nous avons comparé ce résultat aux nombres de nouvelles inscriptions obtenus lors de trois autres périodes, soit du 30 décembre 2014 au 3 février 2015; du 4 février au 11 mars 2015 et du 17 avril au 22 mai 2015. De plus, nous avons comparé le taux de nouvelles inscriptions de London à celui de deux autres villes de l'Ontario, soit Kitchener-Waterloo et Hamilton. La comparaison a été établie selon un ratio de 1:1 où les participants étaient appariés sur la base de leur âge, de leur sexe et de leur revenu. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Pour comparer le nombre de nouvelles inscriptions entre les périodes choisies, nous avons utilisé un modèle de régression binomiale comportant une fonction de lien d'identité, de même que des équations d'estimation généralisées avec structure de corrélation de l'indépendance. Une version modifiée du modèle de régression de Poisson a été utilisée pour comparer les taux d'inscription entre les villes. RÉSULTATS: Au cours de la campagne de sensibilisation, nous avons observé une faible hausse des inscriptions (1 218 nouvelles inscriptions [0,48%]) par rapport à une période antérieure (différence de risque: 0,09%; IC 95%: 0,05% - 0,12%). Cependant, aucune différence significative n'a été observée par rapport aux périodes immédiatement avant et après la campagne de sensibilisation. Un nombre légèrement plus élevé d'inscriptions a eu lieu dans la ville de London pour la période étudiée par rapport à la ville de Hamilton (1 180 inscrits et 236 582 non-inscrits [0,50%] contre 490 inscrits et 236 582 non-inscrits [0,21%]; risque relatif = 2,41; IC 95% = 2,17-2,68). Aucune différence significative n'a été observée entre le taux d'inscription à London et celui de Kitchener-Waterloo. LIMITES DE L'ÉTUDE: Il a été impossible de déterminer si la campagne de sensibilisation a contribué à la légère augmentation du nombre d'inscriptions à la liste de donneurs d'organes post-mortem ou si celle-ci résulte d'autres facteurs (p. ex. événements spontanés d'inscriptions à la liste des donneurs, caractère saisonnier). CONCLUSIONS: Dans l'ensemble, une légère augmentation du nombre d'inscriptions à la liste des donneurs d'organes post-mortem a été observée au cours de la campagne de sensibilisation menée pendant les parties de hockey. Toutefois, il a été impossible d'établir si la campagne de sensibilisation a eu un effet réel sur le nombre d'inscriptions.

Increasing the Rate of Living Donor Kidney Transplantation in Ontario: Donor- and Recipient-Identified Barriers and Solutions.

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.

OBJECTIFS DE LA REVUE: Obtenir l'avis des donneurs de rein et des receveurs d'une greffe ontariens sur ce qu'ils considèrent comme des obstacles aux transplantations rénales provenant d'un donneur vivant, et sur la manière dont les patients pourraient élaborer et mener à bien des solutions innovantes pour accroître le nombre de greffes et améliorer l'expérience d'un donneur vivant à la suite d'une transplantation rénale. SOURCES: Les données ont été recueillies lors d'un atelier d'une journée dirigé par les patients, qui s'est tenu le 10 mars 2016 à Toronto (Ontario). MÉTHODOLOGIE: Les participants, qui s'étaient préalablement livrés à des exercices visant à définir des priorités, ont été invités à prendre part à l'atelier présidé par Sue McKenzie, une patiente. Le groupe de participants était constitué en premier lieu de donneurs de reins et de receveurs d'une greffe, mais également de chercheurs et de représentants de divers organismes en soins de santé rénale et en transplantation de partout en Ontario. PRINCIPALES CONCLUSIONS: Quatre principaux obstacles ont été identifiés : le manque d'information destinée aux patients et à leurs familles, le manque de sensibilisation auprès du public relativement aux donneurs vivants, les frais financiers encourus par les donneurs et, de façon globale, les inefficacités en matière de soins dans le système de santé. Plusieurs solutions ont été proposées lors de l'atelier, notamment l'élaboration d'un réseau de pairs visant à supporter les patients souffrant d'insuffisance rénale ainsi que leur famille et à les informer au sujet de la transplantation avec un donneur vivant. On a également proposé l'adoption de politiques de remboursement pour couvrir les frais encourus par les donneurs et l'établissement de partenariats entre le paramédical et les compagnies d'assurances afin d'améliorer l'efficacité du processus d'évaluation donneur-receveur. LIMITES: Malgré la diversité des expériences vécues par les donneurs et les receveurs présents dans la salle, l'ensemble des réponses ne fournit pas un portrait complet du processus de don de rein vivant qui soit représentatif de tous les donneurs et receveurs de l'Ontario. La discussion portait sur des obstacles et des solutions spécifiques à la situation en Ontario. Par conséquent, il est possible que certaines des solutions apportées soient déjà en pratique ou au contraire, s'avèrent impossibles dans d'autres provinces. CONCLUSIONS: La création d'un conseil provincial, mené par un patient ou une patiente, a été proposée comme étant la prochaine étape cruciale pour faire progresser la conception et la mise en œuvre de solutions concrètes permettant de surmonter les obstacles à la transplantation rénale avec donneur vivant qu'ont identifiés les patients.

The Financial Impact of Advanced Kidney Disease on Canada Pension Plan and Private Disability Insurance Costs.

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.

MISE EN CONTEXTE: De nombreux individus en âge de travailler et atteints d'insuffisance rénale chronique (IRC) de stade avancé sont incapables d'occuper un emploi ou se voient dans l'obligation de travailler à temps réduit ou à des postes ne requérant pas de trop grandes capacités physiques. La situation de ces individus les contraint à recevoir des prestations d'invalidité, soit de la part du gouvernement du Canada, soit auprès d'assureurs privés. On ne connaît toutefois pas l'ampleur réelle de ces prestations. OBJECTIF DE L'ÉTUDE: Évaluer le montant des prestations d'invalidité versées par le Régime de pensions du Canada et par des assureurs privés à des Canadiens vivant avec l'IRC de stade avancé. Déterminer à quel point des améliorations possibles au niveau de la prévention, du diagnostic et de l'intervention précoce, et d'une meilleure accessibilité à la transplantation rénale pourraient soit réduire ces coûts, soit retarder ou raccourcir les périodes de paiement. MODÈLE DE L'ÉTUDE: Il s'agit d'un modèle analytique combinant des données canadiennes provenant de diverses sources. PARTICIPANTS: Tous les patients canadiens atteints d'IRC de stade avancé, y compris ceux présentant un débit de filtration glomérulaire (DFGe) <30 mL/min/1,73 m2 et les patients sous hémodialyse. MESURES: Estimés en matière de prestations d'invalidité dans le cadre d'un programme provincial de soins en néphrologie, jumelés à la prévalence de l'IRC de stade avancé, de même que le montant approximatif des prestations d'invalidité versées par le Régime de pensions du Canada et les régimes d'assurance privés. RÉSULTATS: Nous estimons que les Canadiens souffrant d'IRC de stade avancé reçoivent au moins 217 millions de dollars par an en prestations d'invalidité. Cette estimation dépend de la proportion de personnes incapables de travailler et donc, une variation possible de cette estimation pourrait signifier que les patients atteints d'IRC de stade avancé reçoivent en fait jusqu'à 260 millions de dollars par an en prestations d'invalidité. Les stratégies applicables pour réduire la proportion de personnes atteintes d'une maladie rénale de stade avancé, soit par le biais de la prévention, du ralentissement de la progression de la maladie ou de la diminution de sa gravité, ou alors par l'augmentation du nombre de transplantations pourraient réduire le montant des prestations versées par le Régime de pensions du Canada et les régimes d'assurance privée de 13,8 millions de dollars par an en cinq ans. LIMITES DE L'ÉTUDE: Cette étude ne tient pas compte de la manière dont la prévention de l'IRC ou l'augmentation du nombre de transplantations rénales seraient susceptibles de permettre d'économiser sur les coûts en santé de façon plus globale. CONCLUSIONS: Les fournisseurs d'assurance-invalidité privée et les programmes du gouvernement fédéral supportent des coûts très élevés face aux personnes atteintes d'IRC de stade avancé. Ce constat met en lumière la portée de l'insuffisance rénale non seulement pour les patients et leurs familles, ou pour le système de santé, mais également pour ces autres intervenants majeurs. Des améliorations dans les soins prodigués aux personnes souffrant de maladies rénales pourraient contribuer à réduire ces coûts.

Interns reflect: the effect of formative assessment with feedback during pre-internship.

BACKGROUND: It is widely known that the opportunity for medical students to be observed and to receive feedback on their procedural skills performance is variable in the senior years. To address this problem, we provided our Pre-Intern (PrInt) students with "one-to-one" formative feedback on their ability to perform urethral catheterization (U/C) and hypothesized that their future practice of U/C as interns would benefit. This study sought to evaluate the performance and practice of interns in U/C 4-5 months after having received feedback on their performance of U/C as PrInt students. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2014, two cohorts of interns, (total n=66) who had received recent formative feedback on their U/C performance as PrInt students at Central Clinical School, were invited to complete an anonymous survey. The survey contained nine closed unvalidated questions and one open-ended question, designed to allow interns to report on their current practice of U/C. RESULTS: Forty-one out of 66 interns (62%) completed the survey. Thirty-five out of 41 respondents (85%) reported that the assessment with feedback during their PrInt term was beneficial to their practice. Thirty of 41 (73%) reported being confident to perform U/C independently. Eleven out of 41 respondents (27%) reported that they had received additional training at intern orientation. Nine of the 11 interns (82%) reported that they had a small, but a significant, increase in confidence to perform U/C when compared with the 30 of the 41 respondents (73%) who had not (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Our results substantiate our hypothesis that further education by assessment with feedback in U/C during PrInt was of benefit to interns' performance. Additional educational reinforcement in U/C during intern orientation further improved intern confidence. Our results indicate that extra pre- and post-graduation procedural skills training, with feedback, should be universal.

Practically prepared? Pre-intern student views following an education package.

BACKGROUND: Graduating 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. METHODS: In 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. RESULTS: A 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%). CONCLUSION: Final year students perceived substantial benefit from an educational package specifically aimed at improving their practical skills immediately prior to internship.