Faculty Bibliography

In the setting of an overall decline in living organ donation and new questions about long-term safety, a better understanding of outcomes after living donation has become imperative. Adequate information on outcomes important to donors may take many years to ascertain and may be evident only by comparing large numbers of donors with suitable controls. Previous studies have been unable to fully answer critical questions, primarily due to lack of appropriate controls, inadequate sample size, and/or follow-up duration that is too short to allow detection of important risks attributable to donation. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network does not follow donors long term and has no prospective control group with which to compare postdonation outcomes. There is a need to establish a national living donor registry and to prospectively follow donors over their lifetimes. In addition, there is a need to better understand the reasons many potential donors who volunteer to donate do not donate and whether the reasons are justified. Therefore, the US Health Resources and Services Administration asked the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients to establish a national registry to address these important questions. Here, we discuss the efforts, challenges, and opportunities inherent in establishing the Living Donor Collective.

In 2013, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN)/ United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) mandated that transplant centers collect data on living kidney donors (LKDs) at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postdonation, with policy-defined thresholds for the proportion of complete living donor follow-up (LDF) data submitted in a timely manner (60 days before or after the expected visit date). While mandated, it was unclear how centers across the country would perform in meeting thresholds, given potential donor and center-level challenges of LDF. To better understand the impact of this policy, we studied Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients data for 31,615 LKDs between January 2010 and June 2015, comparing proportions of complete and timely LDF form submissions before and after policy implementation. We also used multilevel logistic regression to assess donor- and center-level characteristics associated with complete and timely LDF submissions. Complete and timely 2-year LDF increased from 33% prepolicy (January 2010 through January 2013) to 54% postpolicy (February 2013 through June 2015) (p < 0.001). In an adjusted model, the odds of 2-year LDF increased by 22% per year prepolicy (p < 0.001) and 23% per year postpolicy (p < 0.001). Despite these annual increases in LDF, only 43% (87/202) of centers met the OPTN/UNOS-required 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year LDF thresholds for LKDs who donated in 2013. These findings motivate further evaluation of LDF barriers and the optimal approaches to capturing outcomes after living donation.

Studies have estimated the average risk of postdonation ESRD for living kidney donors in the United States, but personalized estimation on the basis of donor characteristics remains unavailable. We studied 133,824 living kidney donors from 1987 to 2015, as reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, with ESRD ascertainment via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services linkage, using Cox regression with late entries. Black race (hazard ratio [HR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.25 to 3.89; P<0.001) and male sex (HR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.50 to 2.35; P<0.001) was associated with higher risk of ESRD in donors. Among nonblack donors, older age was associated with greater risk (HR per 10 years, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.59; P<0.001). Among black donors, older age was not significantly associated with risk (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.09; P=0.3). Greater body mass index was associated with higher risk (HR per 5 kg/m², 1.61; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.00; P<0.001). Donors who had a first-degree biological relationship to the recipient had increased risk (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.34; P<0.01). C-statistic of the model was 0.71. Predicted 20-year risk of ESRD for the median donor was only 34 cases per 10,000 donors, but 1% of donors had predicted risk exceeding 256 cases per 10,000 donors. Risk estimation is critical for appropriate informed consent and varies substantially across living kidney donors. Greater permissiveness may be warranted in older black candidate donors; young black candidates should be evaluated carefully.

BACKGROUND:Annual visits with a primary care provider (PCP) are recommended for living kidney donors to monitor long-term health postdonation, yet adherence to this recommendation is unknown. METHODS:We surveyed 1170 living donors from our center from 1970 to 2012 to ascertain frequency of PCP visits pre- and postdonation. Interviews occurred median (IQR) 6.6 (3.8-11.0) years post-transplant. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine associations between donor characteristics and PCP visit frequency. RESULTS:, P=.001). CONCLUSIONS:The importance of annual PCP visits should be emphasized to all living donors, especially those with less education, men (particularly single men), and donors who did not see their PCP annually before donation.

BACKGROUND:Impact of geriatric consultative services (GCS) on hospital readmission and mortality outcomes for cognitively impaired (CI) patients is not known. OBJECTIVE:Evaluate impact of GCS on hospital readmission and mortality among CI inpatients. DESIGN/METHODS:Secondary data analysis of a prospective trial of a computerized decision support system between July 1, 2006 and May 30, 2008. SETTING/METHODS:Study conducted at Eskenazi hospital, Indianapolis, Indiana, a 340-bed, public hospital with over 2300 yearly admissions of patients ages 65 years or older. PATIENTS/METHODS:There were 415 inpatients aged 65 years and older with CI enrolled from July 2006 to March 2008. MEASUREMENTS/METHODS:Thirty-day and 1-year mortality and hospital readmission following the index admission. Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the association between receiving GCS, readmission, or mortality while adjusting for demographics, discharge destination, delirium, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and prior hospitalizations. The propensity score method was used to adjust for the nonrandom assignment of GCS. RESULTS:Patients receiving GCS were older (79 years old, 8.1 standard deviation [SD] vs 76 years old, 7.8 SD; P < 0.001) with higher incidence of delirium (49% vs 29%; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups for hospital readmission (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.19; 95% confidence interval = 0.89-1.59) and mortality at 12 months of index admission (HR = 0.91; 95% confidence interval = 0.59-1.40). However, a significant increase in readmissions was observed for the GCS group (HR = 1.75; 95% confidence interval = 1.06-2.88) at 30 days postdischarge. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:One-year postdischarge outcomes of CI patients who received GCS were not different from patients who did not receive the service. New models of care are needed to improve postdischarge readmission and mortality among hospitalized patients with CI.

New approaches to address the kidney scarcity in the United States are urgently needed. The greatest potential source of kidneys is from living donors. Proposals to offer financial incentives to increase living kidney donation rates remain highly controversial. Despite repeated calls for a pilot study to assess the impact of financial compensation on living kidney donation rates, many fear that financial incentives will exploit vulnerable individuals and cast the field of transplantation in a negative public light, ultimately reducing donation rates. This paper provides an ethical justification for conducting a pilot study of a federally regulated approach to providing financial incentives to living kidney donors, with the goal of assessing donors' perceptions.

BACKGROUND:There is currently a lack of scientifically designed and tested implementation strategies. Such strategies are particularly important for highly complex interventions that require coordination between multiple parts to be successful. This paper presents a protocol for the development and testing of an implementation strategy for a complex intervention known as the Housing First model (HFM). Housing First is an evidence-based practice for chronically homeless individuals demonstrated to significantly improve a number of outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN/METHODS:Drawing on practices demonstrated to be useful in implementation and e-learning theory, our team is currently adapting a face-to-face implementation strategy so that it can be delivered over a distance. Research activities will be divided between Chicago and Central Indiana, two areas with significantly different barriers to HFM implementation. Ten housing providers (five from Chicago and five from Indiana) will be recruited to conduct an alpha test of each of four e-learning modules as they are developed. Providers will be requested to keep a detailed log of their experience completing the modules and participate in one of two focus groups. After refining the modules based on alpha test results, we will test the strategy among a sample of four housing organizations (two from Chicago and two from Indiana). We will collect and analyze both qualitative and quantitative data from administration and staff. Measures of interest include causal factors affecting implementation, training outcomes, and implementation outcomes. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:This project is an important first step in the development of an evidence-based implementation strategy to increase scalability and impact of the HFM. The project also has strong potential to increase limited scientific knowledge regarding implementation strategies in general.

The authors suggest that three articles published in the Fall 2013 issue of The Journal of Clinical Ethics could be used in graduate medical education to help students be more prepared to address differences in professional opinion and improve their skills in patient-doctor communication.