Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Renal Transplantation in Individuals Undergoing Transplant Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The underutilization of kidney transplant as the preferred treatment for end-stage kidney disease is influenced by a lack of knowledge, poor attitudes, and various socio-demographic characteristics. Negative attitudes toward renal transplant disengage patients from the evaluation process and often hinder their likelihood of receiving a transplant. PURPOSE: Determine whether a standardized educational session successfully improves knowledge and attitudes toward kidney transplant. Explore which socio-demographic variables are associated with more negative baseline attitude scores. DESIGN: The program evaluation utilized a pre-test/post-test design to assess attitudes and knowledge toward renal transplant before and after an educational session. The pre- and post-surveys were distributed to a convenience sample of 341 and 115 patients, respectively, between the months of September and December 2019. RESULTS: Exposure to a kidney transplant education program resulted in greater levels of knowledge (P = 0.019, d = 0.334). Individuals with no college education were found to have more negative baseline attitudes toward renal transplantation (P = 0.048, d = 0.382). CONCLUSION: More research is needed to explore how knowledge, attitudes, and certain socio-demographic characteristics impact a patient's intention to pursue kidney transplant. Uncovering reasons as to why certain populations of individuals have more negative baseline attitudes toward kidney transplant may also provide clinicians and transplant programs with valuable information on how pre-transplant education can be tailored to meet the needs of specific populations.

Development and testing of an advanced practice clinical advancement program within an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Faculty advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) and physician assistants (PAs) employed by Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) have historically participated in rank promotion tracks for recognition of professional accomplishments in education, practice, and research. However, there has not been a clinical advancement program for nonfaculty practitioners. Satisfaction, engagement, and health surveys indicated VUMC APRNs and PAs were seeking opportunities for professional growth and development. Many health care organizations have incorporated clinical advancement programs as key recruitment and retention strategies. With a growing number of nonfaculty APRNs and PAs, VUMC began to explore the development, implementation, and evaluation of a clinical advancement program. PURPOSE: A VUMC Clinical Advancement Task Force was created to explore, develop, implement, and evaluate an advanced practice clinical advancement pilot. METHODS: Two teams were selected to participate in a 6-month pilot. Presurveys and postsurveys were conducted, and postpilot focus groups were held with participating practitioners. A 9-square tool was developed as a rubric for evaluating the practitioner's progress. Applications, leader assessments, and recommendations were housed in a secure database for a selected advancement committee to evaluate. RESULTS: Of 23 participants, 47% indicated satisfaction with professional development opportunities, when compared with 84% postpilot. Postpilot focus groups further improved the tool and the process for the program. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Opportunities for advancement/professional development positively influence APRN and PA perceptions of job satisfaction. This program could be tested with other APRN and PA teams for impact on job satisfaction, engagement, and retention.

Living Donor Kidney Transplantation: Improving Efficiencies in Live Kidney Donor Evaluation--Recommendations from a Consensus Conference.

The education, evaluation, and support of living donors before, during, and after donation have historically been considered the roles and responsibilities of transplant programs. Although intended to protect donors, ensure true informed consent, and prevent coercion, this structure often leaves referring nephrologists unclear about the donor process and uncertain regarding the ultimate outcome of potential donors for their patients. The aim of this article is to help the referring nephrologist understand the donor referral and evaluation process, help the referring nephrologist understand the responsibilities of the transplant program, and offer suggestions about how the referring nephrologist can help to improve efficiencies in the process of donor education and evaluation. A partnership between referring nephrologists and transplant programs is an important step in advancing living kidney donation. The referring nephrologists are the frontline providers and are in a unique position to offer education about living donation and improve efficiencies in the process. Understanding the donor referral and evaluation process, the responsibilities of the transplant program, and the potential role referring nephrologists can play in the process is critical to establishing such a partnership.

Development and validation of a questionnaire to assess fear of kidney failure following living donation.

Living kidney donors (LKDs) may feel more anxious about kidney failure now that they have only one kidney and the security of a second kidney is gone. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to develop and empirically validate a self-report scale for assessing fear of kidney failure in former LKDs. Participants were 364 former LKDs within the past 10 years at five US transplant centers and 219 healthy nondonor controls recruited through Mechanical Turk who completed several questionnaires. Analyses revealed a unidimensional factor structure, excellent internal consistency (α = 0.88), and good convergent validity for the Fear of Kidney Failure questionnaire. Only 13% of former donors reported moderate to high fear of kidney failure. Nonwhite race (OR = 2.9, P = 0.01), genetic relationship with the recipient (OR = 2.46, P = 0.04), and low satisfaction with the donation experience (OR = 0.49, P = 0.002) were significant predictors of higher fear of kidney failure. We conclude that while mild anxiety about kidney failure is common, high anxiety about future renal failure among former LKDs is uncommon. The Fear of Kidney Failure questionnaire is reliable, valid, and easy to use in the clinical setting.

More donors or more delayed graft function? A cost-effectiveness analysis of DCD kidney transplantation.

Expansion of the donor pool with expanded criteria donors and donation after cardiac death (DCD) donors is essential. DCD grafts result in increased rates of primary non-function (PNF) and delayed graft function (DGF). However, long-term patient and graft survival is similar between donation after brain death (DBD) donors and DCD donors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of DCD donors. A Markov-based decision analytic model was created to simulate outcomes for two wait list strategies: (i) wait list composed of only DBD organs and (ii) wait list combining DBD and DCD organs. Baseline values and ranges were determined from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) database and literature review. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model strength and parameter variability. The wait list strategy consisting of DBD donors only provided recipients 5.4 Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at $65 000/QALY, whereas a wait list strategy combining DBD + DCD donors provided recipients 6.0 QALYs at a cost of $56 000/QALY. Wait lists with DCD donors provide adequate long-term survival despite more DGF. This equates to an improvement in quality of life and decreased cost when compared to remaining on dialysis for any period of time.

Evaluation of living kidney donors: variables that affect donation.

Approximately 10000 deceased donor organs are available yearly for 85 000 US patients awaiting kidney transplant. Living kidney donation is essential to close this gap and offers better survival rates. However, nationally, 80% of potential donors evaluated fail to donate. Nurse coordinators who perform predonation screening and education need additional insight into the large number of potential donors who fail to complete the donation process. Reasons for nondonation in donor candidates undergoing medical evaluation, and variables affecting nondonation at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between 2004 and 2009 are examined. Multivariable logistic regression models are used to test the effects of age and race on donation status and reasons for nondonation. Summary data are frequencies, percentages, and means (SD). The sample included 706 candidates (63% female, 80% white; mean age, 40 [SD, 12] years). Almost half (46%) received clearance to donate. Undiagnosed hypertension (14%), abnormal glucose tolerance (10%), and protein-urea (9%) were the most prevalent medical reasons for nondonation. About 13% of candidates changed their minds during evaluation. Analyses demonstrated an increased likelihood of older candidates (P < .001) and a decreased likelihood of white candidates (P = .007) being excluded from donation. Within the nondonation group, increased age was associated with undiagnosed hypertension and abnormal glucose tolerance (both race-adjusted, P = .01). Younger candidates (race-adjusted, P = .003) and African Americans (age-adjusted, P = .04) were more likely to decide against donation. The most prevalent medical reasons for nondonation could be identified through enhanced prescreening, and improved preevaluation education could decrease nondonation rates.

Comparison of open live donor nephrectomy, laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy, and hand-assisted live donor nephrectomy: a cost-minimization analysis.

BACKGROUND: Live donor kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for end-stage renal disease. Open donor nephrectomy (ODN) was the standard until the introduction of the laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) in 1995. Hand-assisted laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (HALDN) was added shortly thereafter. The laparoscopic techniques are associated with increased operating room times and equipment costs; however, these techniques speed patient return to normal activity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost of these techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed to simulate outcomes for donors undergoing ODN, LDN, and HALDN. Outcomes were simulated from both the institutional perspective (IP) and the societal perspective (SP). Baseline values and ranges were determined from a systematic review of the literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test model strength. RESULTS: From the IP, ODN is the least costly strategy with a cost of $11,000, while the cost is $15,200 for HALDN and $15,800 for LDN. From the SP, HALDN is the least costly strategy costing $27,800, while the cost for LDN is $29,000 and for ODN is $41,000. In sensitivity analysis, ODN only became the dominant strategy if the days till return to work exceeded 58 in the HALDN strategy. LDN and HALDN were nearly equivalent as the rate of open conversion of LDN approached zero. CONCLUSIONS: HALDN is the least costly donor nephrectomy strategy, especially from the SP. The primary determinants of cost in this model are conversion to open and days till return to work.

Pre-transplant overweight and obesity do not affect physical quality of life after kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies demonstrate that obesity does not affect survival after kidney transplantation. However, overweight and obesity impair health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic illnesses. We wished to examine the effects of pre-transplant overweight and obesity on post-transplant physical HRQOL in kidney transplant recipients. STUDY DESIGN: Patient-reported HRQOL data were systematically collected in kidney transplant recipients receiving post-transplant follow-up at Vanderbilt Transplant Center. Patients who received kidney transplants between 1998 and 2008, had at least 1 post-transplant physical component summary (PCS) measurement, and did not receive other solid organ transplants were included in this retrospective cohort study. Pre-transplant body mass index was stratified as normal, overweight, obese class I, and obese class II/extremely obese. HRQOL was measured primarily with the PCS scale of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 Health Survey. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to test the effects of body mass index and demographic and clinical covariates on post-transplant HRQOL. RESULTS: The study cohort included 464 adults (mean body mass index 27.5 +/- 5.1; range 18.5 to 47.4). After controlling for gender (p = 0.148), pre-transplant dialysis (p = 0.003), previous kidney transplantation (p = 0.255), donor type (p = 0.455), steroid avoidance immunosuppression (p = 0.070), and follow-up time (p = 0.352), there was no effect of pre-transplant overweight or obesity on post-transplant PCS (all p > or = 0.112). Kidney transplant recipients who did not require dialysis pre-transplant and those who were managed with steroid avoidance after transplantation were more likely to achieve post-transplant PCS scores at or above the general population average (both p < or = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-transplant overweight and obesity do not affect physical quality of life after kidney transplantation.