Experiences of Kidney Transplant Recipients as Patient Navigators.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use of trained kidney transplant recipients as patient navigators resulted in increased completion of the steps in the transplant process by dialysis patients. We sought to understand the experiences of these patient navigators. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Six kidney transplant recipients were hired and employed by transplant centers in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. The transplant navigators received formal training as peer educators, met with dialysis patients on a regular basis, and provided tailored education and assistance about transplantation to each patient. They worked closely with the pretransplant coordinators and social workers to learn the details of each patient's transplant work-up. METHODOLOGY: We queried navigators using open-ended questions to learn about their experiences. Navigator responses were coded and common themes identified. A thematic auditor reviewed and refined the coding. RESULTS: Two primary categories of themes emerged about the navigator experience: 1. practical comments that supported programmatic or implementation observations of the navigators, and 2. affective comments that reflected a shared experience among the navigators and patients. The navigators were able to fill voids in the transplant process that were not fulfilled by other caregivers. This was accomplished by a natural bond based upon a shared experience (of dialysis and kidney failure) between the navigator and the patient. The patient and navigator became experiential partners. CONCLUSION: Kidney transplant recipients trained as patient navigators fill the role of a nontraditional medical provider, offer support during the transplant process, and provide an added benefit to complement routine dialysis and nephrology care.

A Standardized Donor Designation Ratio to Assess the Performance of Driver's License Agencies.

Evaluating Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) locations based on the percent of patrons who register as donors does not account for individual characteristics that may influence willingness to donate. We reviewed the driver's licenses of 2997 randomly selected patients at an urban medical system to obtain donor designation, age, gender, and DMV location and linked patient addresses with census tract data on race, ethnicity, income, and education. We then developed a Standardized Donor Designation Ratio (SDDR) (ie, the observed number of donors at each DMV divided by the expected number of donors based on patient demographic characteristics). Overall, 1355 (45%) patients were designated as donors. Donor designation was independently associated with younger age, female gender, nonblack race, and higher income. Across 18 DMVs, the proportion of patients who were donors ranged from 30% to 68% and SDDRs ranged from 0.82 to 1.17. Among the 6 facilities in the lowest tertile by SDDR, 3 were in the lowest tertile by percent donation. In conclusion, there is a great deal of variation across DMVs in rates of organ donor designation. SDDRs that adjust for DMV patron characteristics are distinct measures that may more accurately describe the performance of DMVs in promoting organ donation.

Is Signature Size Associated With Organ Donor Designation on Driver's Licenses?

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies suggest that large signature size is associated with narcissistic characteristics. By contrast, organ donation is an indicator of altruism. Because altruism and narcissism may be viewed as opposites, we sought to determine if smaller signature size is associated with willingness to be an organ donor. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional study design, we reviewed the health records of 571 randomly selected primary care patients at a large urban safety-net medical system to obtain their demographic and medical characteristics. We also examined driver's licenses that were scanned into electronic health records as part of the patient registration process. We measured signature sizes and obtained the organ donor designation from these driver's licenses. RESULTS: Overall, 256 (45%) patients were designated as donors on their driver's licenses. Signature size averaged 113.3 mm(2) but varied greatly across patients (10th percentile 49.1 mm(2), 90th percentile 226.1 mm(2)). On multivariate analysis, donor designation was positively associated with age 18-34 years, non-black race, having private insurance, and not having any comorbid conditions. However, signature size was not associated with organ donor designation. CONCLUSIONS: Signature size is not associated with verified organ donor designation. Further work is needed to understand the relationship between personality types and willingness to be an organ donor.

Stability of Organ Donor Designations on Driver's Licenses.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the stability of decisions that people make to be organ donors. We sought to determine the rate of stability of organ donor designations on driver's licenses. METHODS: With the use of a cross-sectional study design, we reviewed the health records of 2500 randomly selected primary-care patients at a large urban safety-net medical system to obtain their demographic and medical characteristics. We also examined the two most recent unique driver's licenses, state identification cards, or learner's permits that were scanned into electronic health records as part of the patient registration process. We obtained organ donor designations from these documents for each patient. RESULTS: Of all patients, 1174 (47%) had two driver's licenses, identification cards, or permits in their electronic medical records. The two documents were issued an average of 3.5 years apart. Overall, 114 (10%) patients had differing organ donor designations on their two documents. Among the 502 patients who were designated as organ donors on the first document, 32 (6%) were not designated as organ donors on the second document. Among the 672 patients who were not designated as organ donors on the first document, 82 (12%) were designated as organ donors on the second document. There was little relationship between stability of organ donor designations and patient demographic and medical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: About 1 of every 10 patients changed their organ donor designation, but stability was not associated with any demographic or medical factors. Further work is needed to understand why individuals change their organ donor designation.