Red Flags in the Living Kidney Donor Process.

BACKGROUND: Ideally, no live kidney donor should regret their decision or feel they were not fully prepared for the process. Unfortunately, this is not a reality for all donors. The aim of our study is to identify areas for improvement, focusing on factors (red flags) that predict less favorable outcomes from a donor perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 171 living kidney donors responded to a questionnaire with 24 multiple-choice questions and space for comments. Less favorable outcomes were defined as lower satisfaction, extended physical recovery period, long-term fatigue, and longer sick leave. RESULTS: Ten red flags were identified. Of these factors, more fatigue (range, P = .000-0.040) or pain (range, P = .005-0.008) than expected while still in hospital, the actual experience being harder or different than expected (range, P = .001-0.010), and the donor wishing to have had but not having been offered a previous donor as mentor (range, P = .008-.040) correlated significantly with at least 3 of the 4 less favorable outcomes. Another significant red flag was keeping existential issues to oneself (P = .006). CONCLUSION: We identified several factors indicating that a donor could be at an increased risk for a less favorable outcome after donation. Four of these factors have, to our knowledge, not been described earlier: more early fatigue than expected, more postoperative pain than anticipated, not having been offered a mentor at an early stage, and keeping existential issues to oneself. Attention to these red flags already during the donation process could help health care professionals to act early to avoid unfavorable outcomes.

Potential living kidney donors' positive experiences of an information letter from healthcare: a descriptive qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients who need a live donor kidney transplant (LDKT) must often ask potential donors (PLDs) themselves. This is a difficult task and healthcare could unburden them by making this first contact, ensuring also that PLDs receive correct information. We investigated how PLDs experience receiving a letter from healthcare about LDKT, live kidney donation, and inviting them to meet with professionals to get more information. METHODS: The letter (LD-letter) was sent to a cohort of 46 individuals, from which a purposeful sample of 15 were interviewed using a semi-structured guide covering their experience of the letter, views on being approached by healthcare, and opinions on style and content. Interviews were analyzed using conventional inductive analysis. RESULTS: We identified three categories of experiences: Category (1) Reflections on receiving the letter, contains three subcategories relating to how the letter did not induce pressure to donate, did not affect the PLD's relationship with the patient with kidney disease, and made the letter-receiver feel important in the transplant process; Category (2) The letter creates clarification and trust, also contains three subcategories, relating to how it clarified the voluntariness of donation and neutrality of healthcare providers with respect to the PLD's decision, elucidated the patient with kidney disease's current stage of disease (where transplantation was approaching), and unburdened patients from the responsibility of contacting PLDs on their own; Category (3) Opinions and suggestions about the letter and further communication, with four subcategories, relating to preference of a letter as the first step for communication about LDKT, suggestions on style and content, views on following up the letter, and how open meetings about LDKT were an important information source. Furthermore, 80% of the interviewees found the letter's information comprehensive, 67% found it easy to read and respectful, and 86% rated it as good or very good. CONCLUSION: Potential donors prefer and recommend a letter as the first step for communication regarding LD. The LD-letter unburdens patients from the task of asking PLDs and stresses the voluntariness of donation, does not leave PLDs feeling coerced or lead to negative effects in their relationship with the patient.

From words to action--influence of two organ donation campaigns on knowledge and formal decision making.

INTRODUCTION: In Sweden, two donation campaigns have been carried out; one short term (STC) during October 2001, and one long term (LTC) between the years 2003-2005. The goal was not only to inform the public but also to create a positive attitude, make people talk about donation and formally declare their decision. METHODS: The effects of the two campaigns were evaluated through three opinion polls. RESULTS: The willingness to donate was widespread (86%) before and after the campaigns. The LTC increased the knowledge of the Donor Card (24-35%, p < 0.001) and the National Donor Registry (19-40%, p < 0.001). The LTC focused on making people register, still though, only a small increase of registrants was found (11-14%, p = 0.043). The proportion expecting the question of organ donation if their relative was to die under circumstances that made organ donation possible increased (73-79%, p = 0.002). No corresponding increase was found regarding the number having informed a relative about their decision (20-23%, ns). CONCLUSION: The LTC was successful in increasing the expectation for the donation request. It also improved the knowledge of the Card and the Registry and slightly increased the number having registered. However, neither of the campaigns succeeded in making people inform their relatives.