Cognitive evaluation of the AABB Uniform Donor History Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: This article reports key findings of an evaluation of the AABB Uniform Donor History Questionnaire (a self-administered form completed before blood donation). The purpose of the study was to examine how respondents understand the questions and assess the nature of inaccurate responses. Another goal was to determine whether men who have sex with men (MSM) interpreted questions differently from non-MSM and whether questions were interpreted differently in various regions of the country. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cognitive interviewing was used for the study. This is a qualitative method that investigates how survey questions perform. It consists of semistructured interviews that explore whether respondents understand questions as intended and whether they can provide accurate answers. A total of 166 interviews were conducted. RESULTS: Respondents had an overwhelmingly similar understanding of the purpose of the questionnaire as assessing the safety of their blood for donation. This understanding framed respondents' interpretations such that each question was understood as asking the same thing; that is, "Is my blood safe to donate?" This interpretation did not vary among MSM versus non-MSM or by region. CONCLUSION: Respondents understood the questionnaire as assessing the safety of their blood. This interpretation served as the backdrop for the question-response process for each individual question. Specifically, rationale for answers was framed as much or more by the questionnaire's general purpose as by the specific topic of individual questions. This pattern of interpretation was the key factor responsible for both false-positive and false-negative response errors and did not vary by demographic, including in MSM.

Development of a transplantation transmission sentinel network to improve safety and traceability of organ and tissues.

The US lags behind other developed countries in creating a system to monitor disease transmission and other complications from human allograft use, despite a pressing need. The risks of transmission are amplified in transplantation, since at least 8 organs and more than 100 tissues can be recovered from a single common organ and tissue donor. Moreover, since many allografts collected in the US are distributed internationally, tissue safety is a global concern. In June 2005, participants of a US government-sponsored workshop concluded that a communication network for the tracking and reporting of disease transmissions for tissues and organs was critically needed. The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) entered into a cooperative agreement with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2006 to develop a system prototype. Over the following 3 years, the Transplantation Transmission Sentinel Network (TTSN) was developed and piloted with the participation of organ procurement organizations, tissue banks and transplant centers. The prototype centered around three elements of data entry: (1) donation, (2) tissue implantation, and (3) adverse event. The pilot proved that a system can be built and operated successfully, but also suggested that users may be hesitant to report adverse events. CDC has requested further input on scope and cost to build a transplant surveillance infrastructure for a fully functional national system. For tissues however, in contrast to organs, tracking from recovery to implantation will be necessary before a system is operable, requiring common identifiers and nomenclature. Until a US sentinel network is operational, future transmission events that are preventable may result nationally and globally due to its absence.

National evaluation of healthcare provider attitudes toward organ donation after cardiac death.

OBJECTIVE: Organ donation after cardiac death will save lives by increasing the number of transplantable organs. But many healthcare providers are reluctant to participate when the withdrawal of intensive care leads to organ donation. Prior surveys indicate ethical concerns as a barrier to the practice of organ donation after cardiac death, but the specific issues that characterize these concerns are unknown. We thus aimed to identify what barriers healthcare providers perceive. DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to identify issues of broad importance. SETTING: Healthcare setting. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 141 healthcare providers representing critical care and perioperative nurses, transplant surgeons, medical examiners, organ procurement personnel, neurosurgeons, and neurologists. INTERVENTIONS: Collection and analysis of information regarding healthcare providers' attitudes and beliefs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All focus groups agreed that increased organ availability is a benefit but questioned the quality of organs recovered. Study participants identified a lack of standards for patient prognostication and cardiopulmonary death and a failure to prevent a conflict between patient and donor interests as obstacles to acceptance of organ donation after cardiac death. They questioned the practices and motives of colleagues who participate in organ donation after cardiac death, apprehensive that real or perceived impropriety would affect public perception. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers are uncomfortable at the clinical juncture where end-of-life care and organ donation interface. Our findings are consistent with theories that care providers are hesitant to perform medical tasks that they consider to be outside the focus of their practice, especially when there is potential conflict of interest. This conflict appears to impose moral distress on healthcare providers and limits acceptance of organ donation after cardiac death. Future research is warranted to examine the effect of standardized procedures on reducing moral distress. The hypothesis generated by this qualitative study is that use of neutral third parties to broach the subject of organ donation may improve acceptance of organ donation after cardiac death.