Codesign of health technology interventions to support best-practice perioperative care and surgical waitlist management.

OBJECTIVES: This project aimed to determine where health technology can support best-practice perioperative care for patients waiting for surgery. METHODS: An exploratory codesign process used personas and journey mapping in three interprofessional workshops to identify key challenges in perioperative care across four health districts in Sydney, Australia. Through participatory methodology, the research inquiry directly involved perioperative clinicians. In three facilitated workshops, clinician and patient participants codesigned potential digital interventions to support perioperative pathways. Workshop output was coded and thematically analysed, using design principles. RESULTS: Codesign workshops, involving 51 participants, were conducted October to November 2022. Participants designed seven patient personas, with consumer representatives confirming acceptability and diversity. Interprofessional team members and consumers mapped key clinical moments, feelings and barriers for each persona during a hypothetical perioperative journey. Six key themes were identified: 'preventative care', 'personalised care', 'integrated communication', 'shared decision-making', 'care transitions' and 'partnership'. Twenty potential solutions were proposed, with top priorities a digital dashboard and virtual care coordination. DISCUSSION: Our findings emphasise the importance of interprofessional collaboration, patient and family engagement and supporting health technology infrastructure. Through user-based codesign, participants identified potential opportunities where health technology could improve system efficiencies and enhance care quality for patients waiting for surgical procedures. The codesign approach embedded users in the development of locally-driven, contextually oriented policies to address current perioperative service challenges, such as prolonged waiting times and care fragmentation. CONCLUSION: Health technology innovation provides opportunities to improve perioperative care and integrate clinical information. Future research will prototype priority solutions for further implementation and evaluation.

Prophylactic Wound Drainage in Renal Transplant: A Survey of Practice Patterns in Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: Drains are used routinely in many centers at the conclusion of kidney transplant, despite a paucity of evidence to guide practice in kidney transplant. Studies have not shown benefit from prophylactic drain placement following other major abdominal and vascular operations, and usage is consequently declining. Our aim was to understand practice patterns and rationale for behavior in drain placement and management in kidney transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an online survey of surgeons who routinely perform kidney transplants across Australia and New Zealand. RESULTS: The response rate was 66% (43/66). Of respondents, 61% reported routine drain insertion, whereas 21% seldom inserted drains. Concerns about bleeding and anticoagulation (63%) and routine practice (58%) were the dominant reasons for drain insertion. The factors selected as most significant in determining drain removal were both volume and time (44%) and volume alone (33%). A volume of < 50 mL/day (51%) was the most commonly reported threshold for removal. The postoperative period of days 3 to 5 was the most commonly selected time point for drain removal (63%). Seventy-four percent of respondents would consider enrolling their patients in a randomized controlled trial to determine the benefits and harms of drain insertion. CONCLUSIONS: Although drain insertion is a common practice, transplant surgeons in Australia and New Zealand reported sufficient uncertainty concerning the potential benefits and harms to warrant design and conduct of a randomized controlled trial.

Utilization of small pediatric donor kidneys: a decision analysis.

BACKGROUND: Given the disparity between static supply and increasing demand for organs, the greatest challenge is broadening access to the benefits of kidney transplantation. Organs from small deceased pediatric donors are a potentially underused resource. These may be transplanted as en bloc kidney transplants (EBKTs) to one recipient or as single kidney transplants (SKTs) to two recipients, albeit with an increased risk of graft failure. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified data on transplant outcomes for recipients of organs from small pediatric deceased donors. A decision analysis model was constructed to allow the outcome in life years (LY) to be predicted for patients with end-stage kidney disease on the transplant waiting list depending on whether they received EBKT or SKT. RESULTS: At all recipient ages, the projected LY of both recipients of an SKT was greater than the projected LY of an EBKT recipient. The net estimated gain in LY associated with the SKT technique was greatest for recipients aged 20 to 39 years (14.3 years) and lowest for recipients aged 60 to 74 years (3.36 years). Only for recipients of organs from donors weighing less than 10 kg, there was an estimated net loss of LY associated with the SKT technique across all recipient age groups. CONCLUSIONS: There is a greater gain in overall life expectancy using SKTs, because this technique yields two recipients per donor, which more than compensates for the increased risk of graft failure.