Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report.

Purpose of program: A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day. Sources of information: The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics. Methods: Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions. Key findings: The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic. Limitations: Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward. Implications: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

Objectifs du programme: Devenir donneur de rein vivant est difficile, le principal obstacle étant le processus d'évaluation inefficace auquel les candidats doivent se soumettre. Ce processus comporte plus de 30 examens (p. ex. tests de laboratoire et tests diagnostiques), questionnaires et consultations avec des spécialistes. Les candidats donneurs font plusieurs visites dans les hôpitaux et cliniques, et passent souvent plusieurs mois à attendre des rendez-vous et des résultats de tests. En Ontario (Canada), le délai médian pour l'évaluation d'un candidat au don est de près d'un an. Les temps d'attente plus longs sont associés à de moins bons résultats pour les receveurs d'une greffe rénale, ainsi qu'à des coûts de soins de santé plus élevés. Un processus d'évaluation plus court et plus efficace des donneurs potentiels permettrait à un plus grand nombre de patients atteints d'insuffisance rénale de recevoir une greffe, y compris une greffe préventive (c.-à-d. permettant d'éviter la dialyse). Cet article décrit une intervention d'amélioration de la qualité visant à augmenter l'efficience, l'efficacité et la personnalisation du processus d'évaluation des candidats au don. Nous avons développé une clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants (One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic), soit une clinique condensée où les candidats passent tous les tests et consultent un spécialiste dans la même journée. Sources de l'information: La clinique d'un jour pour l'évaluation des donneurs de reins vivants a été développée à la suite d'un examen approfondi de la littérature, de la consultation des commentaires de patients ayant donné avec succès et de rencontres avec les dirigeants du programme de transplantation du St Joseph's Healthcare d'Hamilton. Une équipe multipartite a été formée; celle-ci réunit du personnel soignant en néphrologie, chirurgie de transplantation, radiologie, cardiologie, travail social et médecine nucléaire, ainsi que des patients ayant une expérience vécue du don de rein. L'équipe s'est réunie régulièrement pendant les étapes de planification pour déterminer les objectifs, les paramètres et le calendrier de la clinique, ainsi que les critères de participation et le flux de patients. Méthodologie: Les donneurs potentiels qui avaient complété les tests de laboratoire initiaux et qui acceptaient de se soumettre à un processus accéléré ont été évalués à la clinique d'un jour. Si des tests supplémentaires étaient nécessaires, ceux-ci étaient effectués un autre jour. Les candidats ont été rencontrés par le néphrologue, le chirurgien de transplantation et le coordonnateur des dons environ deux semaines après leur visite à la clinique pour l'approbation finale. L'équipe multipartite continue de se réunir régulièrement pour examiner les commentaires des donneurs, discuter des défis et trouver des solutions. Principaux résultats: La clinique d'un jour, mise sur pied en mars 2019, est en activité depuis quatre ans et permet des améliorations itératives grâce à la rétroaction continue des patients et des soignants. À ce jour, plus de 150 candidats au don ont été évalués à la clinique. Les commentaires des donneurs sont quasi unanimement positifs (98 % des candidats ont déclaré être très satisfaits de la clinique), la plupart soulignant l'efficacité de la clinique et les conséquences minimes du processus sur les obligations professionnelles et familiales. La direction de l'hôpital, tout comme les professionnels de la santé des services participants, continue d'appuyer la clinique d'un jour et de collaborer à la création d'une expérience fluide pour les donneurs potentiels qui la fréquentent. Limites: Les places à la clinique sont limitées; ainsi, certains candidats au don d'un rein vivant pourraient ne pas pouvoir être admis dans le mois où ils se présentent à la clinique. Conclusion: Cette intervention d'amélioration de la qualité axée sur les patients est conçue pour augmenter l'efficacité du processus d'évaluation et bonifier l'expérience des donneurs de rein vivants. Elle vise également à améliorer les résultats des receveurs d'une greffe rénale et, potentiellement, augmenter le don vivant. La prochaine étape sera une évaluation formelle de la clinique, c'est-à-dire la mesure de la rétroaction qualitative des professionnels de la santé qui y travaillent et des candidats au don qui la fréquentent, et l'analyse des processus clés et des résultats des candidats évalués à la clinique d'un jour par rapport à ceux qui suivent le processus d'évaluation habituel. Cette évaluation du programme fournira des données probantes fiables et propres à la région qui pourront informer les centres de transplantation de tout le pays qui envisagent d'intégrer un processus d'évaluation similaire.

Duration of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Evaluations: Findings From 2 Multicenter Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND: A prolonged living kidney donor evaluation may result in worse outcomes for transplant recipients. Better knowledge of the duration of this process may help inform future donors and identify opportunities for improvement. STUDY DESIGN: 1 prospective and 1 retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: At 16 Canadian and Australian transplantation centers (prospective cohort) and 5 Ontario transplantation centers (retrospective cohort), we assessed the duration of living kidney donor evaluation and explored donor, recipient, and transplantation factors associated with longer evaluation times. Data were obtained from 2 sources: donor medical records using chart abstraction and health care administrative databases. PREDICTORS: Donor and recipient demographics, direct versus paired donation, center-level variables. OUTCOMES: Duration of living donor evaluation. RESULTS: The median total duration of transplantation evaluation (time from when the candidate started the evaluation until donation) was 10.3 (IQR, 6.5-16.7) months. The median duration from evaluation start until approval to donate was 7.9 (IQR, 4.6-14.1) months, and from approval until donation was 0.7 (IQR, 0.3-2.4) months, respectively. The median time between the first and last consultation among donors who completed a nephrology, surgery, and psychosocial assessment in the prospective cohort was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.3) months, and between computed tomography angiography and donation was 4.8 (IQR, 2.6-9.2) months. After adjustment, the total duration of transplantation evaluation was longer if the donor participated in paired donation (6.6 [95% CI, 1.6-9.7] months) and if the recipient was referred later relative to the donor's evaluation start date (0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0] months [per month of delayed referral]). Results depended on whether the recipient was receiving dialysis. LIMITATIONS: Living donor candidates who did not donate were not included and proxy measures were used for some dates in the donor evaluation process. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of kidney transplant donor evaluation is variable and can be lengthy. Better understanding of the reasons for a prolonged evaluation may inform quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary delays.

Pharyngeal adaptation in Zenker's diverticulum: the "faux pharyngoesophageal segment".

BACKGROUND: We have noticed a protrusion on the pharyngeal wall in patients with Zenker's diverticulum (ZD). The protrusion gives the appearance of a neo-pharyngoesophageal segment (faux-PES) and may represent an adaptation to protect the airway. STUDY DESIGN: A case-control study. METHODOLOGY: The fluoroscopic swallow studies of patients with ZD were compared with matched controls. Information regarding the presence and location of a faux-PES, true PES opening, pharyngeal constriction, and laryngohyoid elevation was compared. RESULTS: The fluoroscopic swallow studies of 31 patients with ZD were compared with 31 controls. A faux-PES was found in 100 percent of ZD patients and in 0 percent of controls. The mean maximum opening of the faux-PES was 1.5 (+/-0.27) cm. The faux-PES was located 1 cm above the true PES below the entrance to the supraglottic airway. This is the optimal location for airway defense. CONCLUSIONS: The faux-PES was identified in 100 percent of patients with ZD. The faux-PES may represent a physiologic adaptation to protect the airway from regurgitation out of a ZD.

Grading follicular lymphomas in fine-needle aspiration biopsies: the role of ThinPrep slides and flow cytometry.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends a 3-tier grading system (Grades 1-3) for follicular lymphomas (FLs) based on the absolute number of centroblasts per high-power microscopic field (HPF) in 10 neoplastic follicles. Grades 1 and 2 FL are still managed as indolent FLs, whereas Grade 3 FL is thought to behave more aggressively. In this study, the feasibility of grading FL using ThinPrep (TP) slides and flow cytometry (FC) was evaluated. METHODS: Fifty-three cases of lymph node fine-needle aspiration (FNA) from patients with histologically confirmed FL (20 Grade 1, 17 Grade 2, and 16 Grade 3) were included. The number of centroblasts present in 300 lymphoid cells and in 10 HPF in TP Papanicolaou-stained slides was evaluated. The percentage of CD10-positive small cells was calculated with FC results. Statistical analysis was performed with the Jonckheer-Terpstra nonparametric trend test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: The statistical analysis demonstrated a significant upward trend in the number of centroblasts as the grades increased. Also, all 3 methods had statistically significant results to distinguish different grades of FL, except when FC was used to distinguish Grade 2 from Grade 3 FL. CONCLUSIONS: Counting centroblasts, either in 300 lymphoid cells or per 10 HPF in TP slides, represented a statistically significant method to separate different grades of FL in FNA samples. Analysis of cell size by FC was not as reliable to distinguish different grades of FL, especially Grade 2 from 3.