Exploring Staff Attitudes Towards Unspecified Kidney Donors in the United Kingdom: Results From the BOUnD Study.

Unspecified kidney donation (UKD) has made substantial contributions to the UK living donor programme. Nevertheless, some transplant professionals are uncomfortable with these individuals undergoing surgery. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the attitudes of UK healthcare professionals towards UKD. An opportunistic sample was recruited through the Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation (BOUnD) study covering six UK transplant centres: three high volume and three low volume centres. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The study provided comprehensive coverage of the UK transplant community, involving 59 transplant professionals. We identified five themes: staff's conception of the ethics of UKD; presence of the known recipient in the donor-recipient dyad; need for better management of patient expectations; managing visceral reactions about the "typical" unspecified kidney donor; complex attitudes toward a promising new practice. This is the first in-depth qualitative study of attitudes of transplant professionals towards UKD. The data uncovered findings with strong clinical implications for the UKD programme, including the need for a uniform approach towards younger candidates that is adhered to by all transplant centres, the need to equally extend the rigorous assessment to both specified and unspecified donors, and a new approach to managing donor expectations.

The effectiveness of a primary care-based collaborative care model to improve quality of life in people with severe mental illness: PARTNERS2 cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with severe mental illness can have significant emotional, physical and social challenges. Collaborative care combines clinical and organisational components. AIMS: We tested whether a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS) would improve quality of life for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or other psychoses, compared with usual care. METHOD: We conducted a general practice-based, cluster randomised controlled superiority trial. Practices were recruited from four English regions and allocated (1:1) to intervention or control. Individuals receiving limited input in secondary care or who were under primary care only were eligible. The 12-month PARTNERS intervention incorporated person-centred coaching support and liaison work. The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life (MANSA). RESULTS: We allocated 39 general practices, with 198 participants, to the PARTNERS intervention (20 practices, 116 participants) or control (19 practices, 82 participants). Primary outcome data were available for 99 (85.3%) intervention and 71 (86.6%) control participants. Mean change in overall MANSA score did not differ between the groups (intervention: 0.25, s.d. 0.73; control: 0.21, s.d. 0.86; estimated fully adjusted between-group difference 0.03, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.31; P = 0.819). Acute mental health episodes (safety outcome) included three crises in the intervention group and four in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life, as measured with the MANSA, between those receiving the PARTNERS intervention and usual care. Shifting care to primary care was not associated with increased adverse outcomes.

Evaluation of a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS2) for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychoses: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The 'PARTNERS2' complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting. AIM: The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention. DESIGN & SETTING: This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care ('intervention'); or (b) standard care only ('control'). METHOD: PARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses.

Experiences of completed and withdrawn unspecified kidney donor candidates in the United Kingdom: An inductive thematic analysis from the BOUnD study.

Objectives This study sheds light on some controversial aspects of unspecified kidney donation (UKD) as well as the ways in which potential donors are screened and prepared for the donation experience and its aftermath. The aim of this study was to qualitatively investigate the experiences of individuals involved in the United Kingdom (UK) UKD scheme, including those who complete the donation, are eventually medically withdrawn, or self-withdraw. Better insight into the different experiences of these groups will provide useful guidance to clinical teams on how to better address the differing psychological needs of completed donors as well as those who do not proceed to donation. Methods A purposive sample was recruited through the Barriers and Outcomes in Unspecified Donation (BOUnD) study covering 23 transplant centres in the United Kingdom. Semi-structured interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and subjected to inductive thematic analysis. Results Participants consisted of 15 individuals who had donated, 11 who had been withdrawn by the transplant team and nine who had self-withdrawn. The analysis resulted in six themes and 14 subthemes. The major themes were maximizing and sharing benefits; risk-to-motivation analysis; support; self-actualization/finding meaning; the donor as patient; and relationship with the transplant team. Conclusions The data demonstrate that, although all donors enter the process with a similar level of commitment, those who did not proceed to donation expressed dissatisfaction and lingering emotional consequences linked to lack of follow-up from transplant teams. The implication for the UKD programme is that from the beginning there needs to be a strategic and consistent approach to managing expectations in order to prepare those who embark on the donation process for all possible outcomes and their associated emotional consequences.

Key experiences of primary social groups in Unspecified Kidney Donation.

BACKGROUND: The role of family members in directed kidney donation is well documented in the literature from both a physiological and psychosocial perspective. The experiences of families, or primary social groups (PSGs), where one member considers donating a kidney via unspecified altruistic kidney donation route (UKD) is poorly understood. This is pertinent as lack of family support has been identified as a potential contributor to donation withdrawal. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the relevant psychosocial factors underpinning completed and uncompleted donations. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in the United Kingdom with 35 individuals comprising of: 11 donors who donated their kidney altruistically and 8 of their PSG members, and 11 donors who withdrew and 5 of their PSG members. APPROACH: Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Two major themes were identified: (1) Supportability, which contained experiences fundamental to proceeding to donate, underpinned by four subthemes Acceptability, Awareness and Information, Family Risk and Ambivalence;(2) Seeking Resolution, contained discussions of experiences following either withdrawal from or completion of the donation, and comprised two sub-themes, Unfinished Business and Resolve. CONCLUSIONS: There are key differences in the experiences between those who completed their donation and those who withdrew. It is clear from this study that UKD operates within a PSG's social framework. Clinical implications suggest interventions at the level of addressing ambivalence within the PSG and the need for promotion of better psychosocial outcomes both following completion or withdrawal from donation.

Understanding barriers and outcomes of unspecified (non-directed altruistic) kidney donation from both professional's and patient's perspectives: research protocol for a national multicentre mixed-methods prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Living donation accounts for over one-third of all kidney transplants taking place in the UK. 1 The concept of anonymously donating a kidney to a stranger (non-directed altruistic or unspecified kidney donation (UKD)) remains uncomfortable for some clinicians, principally due to concerns about the motivations and long-term physical and psychological outcomes in this donor group. AIMS: The research programme aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the unspecified donor programme in the UK. It aims to identify reasons for variations in practice across centres, explore outcomes for donors and ascertain barriers and facilitators to UKD, as well as assess the economic implications of unspecified donation. METHODS: The research programme will adopt a mixed-methods approach to assessing UKD nationally using focus groups, interviews and questionnaires. Two study populations will be investigated. The first will include transplant professionals involved in unspecified kidney donation. The second will include a 5-year prospective cohort of individuals who present to any of the 23 UK transplant centres as a potential unspecified living kidney donor. Physical and psychological outcomes will be followed up to 1 year following donation or withdrawal from the donation process. A matched sample of specified donors (those donating to someone they know) will be recruited as a control group. Further qualitative work consisting of interviews will be performed on a purposive sample of unspecified donors from both groups (those who do and do not donate). DISSEMINATION: The findings will be reported to NHS Blood and Transplant and the British Transplant Society with a view to developing national guidelines and a protocol for the management of those presenting for unspecified donation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23895878, Pre-results.