Practice and Attitudes of Donor Coordinator Roles Regarding Physical Examination of Potential Organ and Tissue Donors in Australia.
Journal
Transplantation direct
ISSN: 2373-8731
Titre abrégé: Transplant Direct
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101651609
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
09
01
2019
revised:
29
04
2019
accepted:
30
04
2019
entrez:
3
10
2019
pubmed:
3
10
2019
medline:
3
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Physical examination of potential organ and tissue donors is standard practice to mitigate risks and optimize outcomes for transplant recipients, but the content and process of the examination has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to determine current practice of performing a physical examination on potential organ and tissue donors in Australia. An online cross-sectional survey was circulated to all Australian Donor Coordinators (n = 125). There were 75 responses (60% response rate) to the online survey. Respondents perform a mean 10.5 physical examinations per year. Inconsistencies were observed in the approach to the physical examination, inclusive of assessment techniques used to perform the examination such as palpation. Specific staff training and education to perform the examination was reportedly provided to 77% of respondents. There was less variation reported in examination findings classified as higher risk and escalation procedures with the 3 most common findings of injection sites / track marks (86%), suspicious moles (77%), and unexplained scarring (51%), and with 97% seeking a second opinion. Current and previously removed melanomas were the main examination findings that stopped a donation from proceeding, as reported to have occurred by 18 respondents. This study has identified variations in current physical examination practice and provided the evidence to pursue practice improvement. The inconsistencies can be partly attributed to discrepancies in training and education of staff and no standardized national guidelines to clearly outline expected practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Physical examination of potential organ and tissue donors is standard practice to mitigate risks and optimize outcomes for transplant recipients, but the content and process of the examination has not been investigated. The aim of this study was to determine current practice of performing a physical examination on potential organ and tissue donors in Australia.
METHODS
METHODS
An online cross-sectional survey was circulated to all Australian Donor Coordinators (n = 125).
RESULTS
RESULTS
There were 75 responses (60% response rate) to the online survey. Respondents perform a mean 10.5 physical examinations per year. Inconsistencies were observed in the approach to the physical examination, inclusive of assessment techniques used to perform the examination such as palpation. Specific staff training and education to perform the examination was reportedly provided to 77% of respondents. There was less variation reported in examination findings classified as higher risk and escalation procedures with the 3 most common findings of injection sites / track marks (86%), suspicious moles (77%), and unexplained scarring (51%), and with 97% seeking a second opinion. Current and previously removed melanomas were the main examination findings that stopped a donation from proceeding, as reported to have occurred by 18 respondents.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study has identified variations in current physical examination practice and provided the evidence to pursue practice improvement. The inconsistencies can be partly attributed to discrepancies in training and education of staff and no standardized national guidelines to clearly outline expected practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31576367
doi: 10.1097/TXD.0000000000000906
pmc: PMC6708629
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e471Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Transplantation Direct. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest. DonateLife ACT and University of Canberra contributed funding to cover the costs of publication.
Références
JAMA. 1999 Oct 6;282(13):1270-80
pubmed: 10517431
Am J Transplant. 2015 Jan;15(1):259-64
pubmed: 25376342
Am J Transplant. 2018 Jul;18(7):1810-1814
pubmed: 29633548
Transplantation. 2003 Dec 27;76(12):1695-9
pubmed: 14688518
Aust Fam Physician. 2007 Mar;36(3):145-50
pubmed: 17339978
Clin Transplant. 2010 Mar-Apr;24(2):259-64
pubmed: 19758270
Breast Cancer (Auckl). 2015 Sep 01;9(Suppl 1):23-34
pubmed: 26380552
Curr Oncol. 2016 Aug;23(4):e332-9
pubmed: 27536182
Collegian. 2014;21(3):245-53
pubmed: 25632720
J Clin Nurs. 2015 Dec;24(23-24):3700-6
pubmed: 26419409
Transplantation. 2008 Apr 27;85(8 Suppl):S52-6
pubmed: 18425037
Cell Tissue Bank. 2009 Aug;10(3):253-7
pubmed: 19048394
Cell Tissue Bank. 2012 Dec;13(4):565-7
pubmed: 21814737