Multicenter investigation of the reliability and validity of the live donor assessment tool as an enhancement to the psychosocial evaluation of living donors.

The live donor assessment tool (LDAT) is the first psychosocial assessment tool developed to standardize live donor psychosocial evaluations. A multicenter study was conducted to explore reliability and validity of the LDAT and determine its ability to enhance the psychosocial evaluation beyond its center of origin. Four transplant programs participated, each with their own team of evaluators and unique demographics. Liver and kidney living donors (LDs) undergoing both standard psychosocial evaluation and LDAT from June 2015 to September 2016 were studied. LDAT interrater reliability, associations between LDAT scores and psychosocial evaluation outcome, and psychosocial outcomes postdonation were tested. 386 LD evaluations were compared and had a mean LDAT score of 67.34 ± 7.57. In 140 LDs with two LDATs by different observers, the interrater scores correlated (r = 0.63). LDAT scores at each center and overall stratified to the conventional grouping of psychosocial risk level. LDAT scores of 131 subjects who proceeded with donation were expectedly lower in LDs requiring postdonation counseling (t = -2.78, P = .01). The LDAT had good reliability between raters and predicted outcome of the psychosocial evaluation across centers. It can be used to standardize language among clinicians to communicate psychosocial risk of LD candidates and assist teams when anticipating postdonation psychosocial needs.

Solicited kidney donors: Are they coerced?

Most non-directed donors (NDDs) decide to donate on their own and contact the transplant centre directly. Some NDDs decide to donate in response to community solicitation such as newspaper ads or donor drives. We wished to explore whether subtle coercion might be occurring in such NDDs who are part of a larger community. One successful organization in a community in Brooklyn, NY, provides about 50 NDDs per year for recipients within that community. The donors answer ads in local papers and attend donor drives. Herein, we evaluated the physical and emotional outcomes of community-solicited NDDs in comparison to traditional NDDs who come from varied communities and are not responding to a specific call for donation. An assessment of coercion was used as well.