Socioeconomic factors as predictors of organ donation.

BACKGROUND: Despite numerous initiatives to increase solid organs for transplant, the gap between donors and recipients widens. There is little in the literature identifying socioeconomic predictors for donation. We evaluate the correlation between socioeconomic factors and familial authorization for donation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of adult potential donor referrals between 2007 and 2012 to our organ procurement organization (OPO) was performed. Potential donor information was obtained from the OPO database, death certificates, and the US Census Report. Data on demographics, education, residence, income, registry status, cause and manner of death, as well as OPO assessments and approach for donation were collected. End point was familial authorization for donation. RESULTS: A total of 1059 potential donors were included, with an overall authorization rate of 47%. The majority was not on the donor registry (73%). Younger donors (18-39 y: odds ratio [OR] = 4.9, P < 0.001; 40-60 y: OR = 2.1, P < 0.001), higher levels of education (college: OR = 2.5, P = 0.005; graduate studies: OR = 3.9, P = 0.002), prior listing on the donor registry (OR = 10.3, P < 0.001), and residence in counties with lower poverty rates than the US rates (OR = 1.7, P = 0.02) were independently associated with higher authorization rates. Decoupling (OR = 3.1, P < 0.001) and donation first mentioned by the local health care provider (OR = 1.8, P = 0.01) were also independently associated with higher authorization rates. CONCLUSIONS: Donor registration correlated most strongly with the highest authorization rates. These results indicate that public educational efforts in populations with unfavorable socioeconomic considerations may be beneficial in improving donor registration. Collaborations with local providers as well as OPO in-hospital assessments and approach techniques can help with improving authorization rates.

The Relationship of Endoscopic Proficiency to Educational Expense for Virtual Reality Simulator Training Amongst Surgical Trainees.

With the introduction of Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery, training methods in flexible endoscopy are being augmented with simulation-based curricula. The investment for virtual reality simulators warrants further research into its training advantage. Trainees were randomized into bedside or simulator training groups (BED vs SIM). SIM participated in a proficiency-based virtual reality curriculum. Trainees' endoscopic skills were rated using the Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) in the patient care setting. The number of cases to reach 90 per cent of the maximum GAGES score and calculated costs of training were compared. Nineteen residents participated in the study. There was no difference in the average number of cases required to achieve 90 per cent of the maximum GAGES score for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, 13 (SIM) versus11 (BED) (P = 0.63), or colonoscopy 21 (SIM) versus 4 (BED) (P = 0.34). The average per case cost of training for esophagogastroduodenoscopy was $35.98 (SIM) versus $39.71 (BED) (P = 0.50), not including the depreciation costs associated with the simulator ($715.00 per resident over six years). Use of a simulator appeared to increase the cost of training without accelerating the learning curve or decreasing faculty time spent in instruction. The importance of simulation in endoscopy training will be predicated on more cost-effective simulators.