Perspectives on donor-derived infections from Germany.

AIM: Often, organ transplantation is the only option to improve the life expectancy and quality of life of patients with terminal organ failure. Despite improved donor and organ assessment, a residual risk remains for transmitting infection, tumor, or other disease from the donor to recipients. Analysis, reporting, and managing of donor-derived diseases through a vigilance and surveillance system (V&S) is mandatory in many countries. We report on suspected and proven/probable donor-derived infections (DDI) in Germany over a period of 8 years (2016-2023). METHODS: All incoming serious-adverse-event and serious-adverse-reaction (SAE/SAR) reports from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2023 were evaluated for suspected DDI. Analysis of imputability followed the definition of the US Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC). Only probable and proven cases according to DTAC classification were defined as DDI. RESULTS: During the study period, 9771 donors in Germany donated post-mortem organs to 27 919 recipients. In that period 612 SAE/SAR cases were reported, 377 (62%) involved infections. 41 cases were proven/probable DDI affecting 58 recipients (seven recipients died, 12%). Suspected infections were bacterial (182/377, 48%), fungal (135/377, 36%), viral (55/377, 15%), and parasitic (5/377, 1%). In case of bacterial DDI, no recipient died, but organ loss occurred in six recipients. In case of fungal or viral DDI, 19% (3/16) and 21% (3/14) of the recipients died, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DDI are rare in solid organ transplantation (58/27 919, 0.21%), but when they occur, they are associated with high morbidity and mortality in affected recipients. Careful and detailed donor evaluation and a reliable V&S help improve recipient safety.

Allocation Rules and Age-Dependent Waiting Times for Kidney Transplantation­an Analysis of Data From the German Transplantation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Rigid age limits in the current allocation system for post-mortem donor kidneys in Germany may have problematic effects. The new German national transplantion registry enables data analysis with respect to this question. METHODS: Using anonymized data from the German national transplantion registry, we extracted and evaluated information on the recipients and postmortem donors of kidneys that were allocated in Germany through Eurotransplant over the period 2006-2020. RESULTS: Data on 19 664 kidney transplantations in Germany from 2006 to 2020 were analyzed. The median waiting time for kidney transplantation was 5.8 years. Persons under age 18 waited a median of 1.7 years; persons aged 18 to 64, 7.0 years; and persons aged 65 and older, 3.8 years. Over the period of observation, post-mortem kidneys were transplanted into 401 people of age 64 (2.0% of all organ recipients) and 1,393 people of age 65 (7.1% of all organ recipients). The difference in waiting times between allocation programs for persons under age 65 (ETKAS, "Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System") and those aged 65 and older (ESP, "Eurotransplant Senior Program") increased over the period of observation, from 2.6 years in 2006-2010 to 4.1 years in 2017-2020. CONCLUSION: The rigid age limits in the current allocation rules for post-mortem kidney donations in Germany are prolonging the waiting times for transplants among patients aged 18 to 64. We think these rules need to be fundamentally reassessed.

Organ Donation and Transplantation Registries Across the Globe: A Review of the Current State.

BACKGROUND: The current landscape of organ donation and transplantation (ODT) registries is not well established. This narrative review sought to identify and characterize the coverage, structure, and data capture of ODT registries globally. METHODS: We conducted a literature search using Ovid Medline and web searches to identify ODT registries from 2000 to 2023. A list of ODT registries was compiled based on publications of registry design, studies, and reports. Extracted data elements included operational features of registries and the types of donor and recipient data captured. RESULTS: We identified 129 registries encompassing patients from all continents except Antarctica. Most registries were active, received funding from government or professional societies, were national in scope, included both adult and pediatric patients, and reported patient-level data. Registries included kidney (n = 99), pancreas (n = 32), liver (n = 44), heart (n = 35), lung (n = 30), intestine (n = 15), and islet cell (n = 5) transplants. Most registries captured donor data (including living versus deceased) and recipient features (including demographics, cause of organ failure, and posttransplant outcomes) but there was underreporting of other domains (eg, donor comorbidities, deceased donor referral rates, waitlist statistics). CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights existing ODT registries globally and serves as a call for increased visibility and transparency in data management and reporting practices. We propose that standards for ODT registries, a common data model, and technical platforms for collaboration, will enable a high-functioning global ODT system responsive to the needs of transplant candidates, recipients, and donors.

Approaching the Families of Potential Deceased Organ Donors: An Overview of Regulations and Practices in Council of Europe Member States.

The primary aim of this study was to describe regulations and practices concerning the family approach to discuss donation, specifically after the neurological determination of death, one of the most challenging steps in the donation pathway. A secondary objective was to assess the impact of legislation on consent rates for organ donation. The Council of Europe surveyed 39 member states about national regulations, practices, and consent rates; 34 replied. Opt-out legislation is present in 19, opt-in in 9 and a mixed system in six countries. An opt-out register is kept by 24 countries and an opt-in register by 18 countries, some keeping both. The mean consent rate was 81.2% of all family approaches. Most countries regulate how death using neurological criteria is confirmed (85.3%), while regulation of other aspects of the deceased donation pathway varies: the timing of informing the family about brain death (47.1%) and organ donation (58.8%), the profile of professional who discusses both topics with the family (52.9% and 64.7%, respectively) and the withdrawal of treatment after brain death (47.1%). We also noted a mismatch between what regulations state and what is done in practice in most countries. We suggest possible reasons for this disparity.

Vigilance Data in Organ Donation and Solid Organ Transplantation in Germany: Six Years of Experience 2016-2022.

The reporting of serious adverse events (SAE) and serious adverse reactions (SAR) is an essential part of an effective vigilance and surveillance system (V&S) in organ donation and transplantation. All SAE and SAR reported to the German organ procurement organization (DSO) between 2016 and 2022 were analyzed. In case of a possible transmission of a disease to one or more recipients, an assessment of imputability was done according to the grading system of the US Disease Transmission Advisory Committee (DTAC). 543 SAE and SAR cases were reported to the DSO and analyzed in detail. 53 of the 543 reports (9.8%) were proven or probable (P/P) transmissions of infectious diseases, malignancies or other diseases to 75 recipients. Infections were the most frequently reported P/P disease transmission occurrences (30/53, 57%). In case of disease transmission, the mortality of the recipients was high (17/75, 23%), especially when a malignant disease was transmitted (11/22, 50 %). Donor-Derived disease transmission is a rare event (53/8,519; 0.6 %), but when it occurs can lead to significant morbidity and mortality.

A paired-kidney allocation study found superior survival with HLA-DR compatible kidney transplants in the Eurotransplant Senior Program.

The Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) has expedited the chance for elderly patients with kidney failure to receive a timely transplant. This current study evaluated survival parameters of kidneys donated after brain death with or without matching for HLA-DR antigens. This cohort study evaluated the period within ESP with paired allocation of 675 kidneys from donors 65 years and older to transplant candidates 65 years and older, the first kidney to 341 patients within the Eurotransplant Senior DR-compatible Program and 334 contralateral kidneys without (ESP) HLA-DR antigen matching. We used Kaplan-Meier estimates and competing risk analysis to assess all cause mortality and kidney graft failure, respectively. The log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression were used for comparisons. Within ESP, matching for HLA-DR antigens was associated with a significantly lower five-year risk of mortality (hazard ratio 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.95) and significantly lower cause-specific hazards for kidney graft failure and return to dialysis at one year (0.55; 0.35-0.87) and five years (0.73; 0.53-0.99) post-transplant. Allocation based on HLA-DR matching resulted in longer cold ischemia (mean difference 1.00 hours; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-1.68) and kidney offers with a significantly shorter median dialysis vintage of 2.4 versus 4.1 yrs. in ESP without matching. Thus, our allocation based on HLA-DR matching improved five-year patient and kidney allograft survival. Hence, our paired allocation study suggests a superior outcome of HLA-DR matching in the context of old-for-old kidney transplantation.

Regional Differences in Waiting Times for Kidney Transplantation in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In order to achieve short ischemia times between organ donation and transplantation, regional organ allocation has been assigned priority in the development of allocation rules for kidney transplantation. It is unclear whether this leads to differences in regional waiting times in Germany. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study over a 24-month observation period was conducted, including all patients who received a kidney-only graft allocated via the standard Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) (n = 1487) or the Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) (n = 566). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to investigate differences in waiting times across the regions (ETKAS) or subregions (ESP) as defined by the German Organ Procurement Organization (DSO). Associations between the number of regionally procured kidneys (n = 1444) and regional waiting times were investigated. RESULTS: In ETKAS, the median waiting time was 8.9 years (interquartile range [IQR] 6.7-10.6); in ESP, it was 3.9 (2.4 -5.3) years. Compared with the reference region with the shortest waiting time, waiting times in other regions were 0.6 to 1.7 years longer in ETKAS and 1.3 to 4.4 years longer in ESP. The ratio of the number of patients on the waiting list for a particular region to the number of organs donated in that region was associated with the waiting time in ETKAS (R2 = 0.70). In ESP, this association was markedly less pronounced (R2 = 0.45). CONCLUSION: In Germany, waiting times depend strongly on the region where a patient is listed for kidney transplantation, especially in ESP. These findings call the current allocation algorithms into question and imply a need for suitable modification.

Trends in kidney transplantation rate across Europe: study from the ERA Registry.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify trends in total, deceased donor (DD) and living donor (LD) kidney transplantation (KT) rates in European countries. METHODS: The European Renal Association (ERA) Registry and the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation (GODT) databases were used to obtain the number of KTs in individual European countries between 2010 and 2018. General population counts were obtained from Eurostat or the national bureaus of statistics. The KT rate per million population (p.m.p.) and the average annual percentage change (APC) were calculated. RESULTS: The total KT rate in the 40 participating countries increased with 1.9% annually  [95%  confidence  interval  (CI) 1.5, 2.2] from 29.6 p.m.p. in 2010 to 34.7 p.m.p. in 2018, reflecting an increase of 3.4 p.m.p. in the DD-KT rate (from 21.6 p.m.p. to 25.0 p.m.p.; APC 1.9%; 95% CI 1.3, 2.4) and of 1.5 p.m.p. in the LD-KT rate (from 8.1 p.m.p. to 9.6 p.m.p.; APC 1.6%; 95% CI 1.0, 2.3). The trends in KT rate varied widely across European countries. An East-West gradient was observed for DD-KT rate, with Western European countries performing more KTs. In addition, most countries performed fewer LD-KTs. In 2018, Spain had the highest DD-KT rate (64.6 p.m.p.) and Turkey the highest LD-KT rate (37.0 p.m.p.). CONCLUSIONS: The total KT rate increased due to a rise in the KT rate from DDs and to a lesser extent from LDs, with large differences between individual European countries.

The Reality of Inadequate Patient Care and the Need for a Global Action Framework in Organ Donation and Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Transplant therapy is considered the best and often the only available treatment for thousands of patients with organ failure that results from communicable and noncommunicable diseases. The number of annual organ transplants is insufficient for the worldwide need. METHODS: We elaborate the proceedings of the workshop entitled "The Role of Science in the Development of International Standards of Organ Donation and Transplantation," organized by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and cosponsored by the World Health Organization in June 2021. RESULTS: We detail the urgency and importance of achieving national self-sufficiency in organ transplantation as a public health priority and an important contributor to reaching relevant targets of the United Nations Agenda for Sustainable Development. It details the elements of a global action framework intended for countries at every level of economic development to facilitate either the establishment or enhancement of transplant activity. It sets forth a proposed plan, by addressing the technical considerations for developing and optimizing organ transplantation from both deceased and living organ donors and the regulatory oversight of practices. CONCLUSIONS: This document can be used in governmental and policy circles as a call to action and as a checklist for actions needed to enable organ transplantation as treatment for organ failure.

Impact of Sensitization on Waiting Time Prior to Kidney Transplantation in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Assignment of unacceptable HLA mismatches (UAMs) prevents transplantation of incompatible grafts but potentially prolongs waiting time. Whether this is true in the Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) and the Eurotransplant Senior Program in Germany is highly debated and relevant for UAM policies. METHODS: Donor pool restriction due to UAM was expressed as percent virtual panel-reactive antibodies (vPRAs). Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariable Cox regression models were used to analyze the impact of vPRA levels on waiting time and transplant probability during a period of 2 y in all patients eligible for a kidney graft unter standard circumstances in Germany on February 1, 2019 (n = 6533). Utility of the mismatch probability score to compensate for sensitization in ETKAS was also investigated. RESULTS: In ETKAS, donor pool restriction resulted in significant prolongation of waiting time and reduction in transplant probability only in patients with vPRA levels above 85%. This was most evident in patients with vPRA levels above 95%, whereas patients in the acceptable mismatch program had significantly shorter waiting times and higher chances for transplantation than nonsensitized patients. In the Eurotransplant Senior Program, vPRA levels above 50% resulted in significantly longer waiting times and markedly reduced the chance for transplantation. Compensation for sensitization by the mismatch probability score was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Donor pool restriction had no significant impact on waiting time in most sensitized patients. However, despite the existence of the acceptable mismatch program, the majority of highly sensitized patients is currently disadvantaged and would benefit from better compensation mechanisms.

Kidney Transplantation After Rescue Allocation-the Eurotransplant Experience: A Retrospective Multicenter Outcome Analysis.

BACKGROUND: At Eurotransplant (ET), kidneys are transferred to "rescue allocation" (RA), whenever the standard allocation (SA) algorithms Eurotransplant Kidney Allocation System (ETKAS) and Eurotransplant Senior Program (ESP) fail. We analyzed the outcome of RA. METHODS: Retrospective patient clinical and demographic characteristics association analyses were performed with graft outcomes for 2422 recipients of a deceased donor renal transplantation (DDRT) after RA versus 25 481 after SA from 71 centers across all ET countries from 2006 to 2018. RESULTS: Numbers of DDRTs after RA increased over the time, especially in Germany. RA played a minor role in ESP versus ETKAS (2.7% versus 10.4%). RA recipients and donors were older compared with SA recipients and donors, cold ischemia times were longer, waiting times were shorter, and the incidence of primary nonfunction was comparable. Among ETKAS recipients, HLA matching was more favorable in SA (mean 3.7 versus 2.5). In multivariate modeling, the incidence of graft loss in ETKAS recipients was reduced in RA compared with SA (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [0.70-0.91], P < 0.001), whereas other outcomes (mortality, death with functioning graft (DwFG)) were not significantly different. None of the 3 outcomes were significantly different when comparing RA with SA within the ESP program. CONCLUSIONS: Facing increased waiting times and mortality on dialysis due to donor shortage, this study reveals encouragingly positive DDRT outcomes following RA. This supports the extension of RA to more patients and as an alternative tool to enable transplantation in patients in countries with prohibitively long waiting times or at risk of deterioration.

Patient-reported factors influencing the choice of their kidney replacement treatment modality.

BACKGROUND: Access to various kidney replacement therapy (KRT) modalities for patients with end-stage kidney disease differs substantially within Europe. METHODS: European adults on KRT filled out an online or paper-based survey about factors influencing and experiences with modality choice (e.g. information provision, decision-making and reasons for choice) between November 2017 and January 2019. We compared countries with low, middle and high gross domestic product (GDP). RESULTS: In total, 7820 patients [mean age 59 years, 56% male, 63% on centre haemodialysis (CHD)] from 38 countries participated. Twenty-five percent had received no information on the different modalities, and only 23% received information >12 months before KRT initiation. Patients were not informed about home haemodialysis (HHD) (42%) and comprehensive conservative management (33%). Besides nephrologists, nurses more frequently provided information in high-GDP countries, whereas physicians other than nephrologists did so in low-GDP countries. Patients from low-GDP countries reported later information provision, less information about other modalities than CHD and lower satisfaction with information. The majority of modality decisions were made involving both patient and nephrologist. Patients reported subjective (e.g. quality of life and fears) and objective reasons (e.g. costs and availability of treatments) for modality choice. Patients had good experiences with all modalities, but experiences were better for HHD and kidney transplantation and in middle- and high-GDP countries. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest European differences in patient-reported factors influencing KRT modality choice, possibly caused by disparities in availability of KRT modalities, different healthcare systems and varying patient preferences. Availability of home dialysis and kidney transplantation should be optimized.

Access of non-residents to transplantation of deceased donor organs: practices and strategies in the European setting.

The access of non-resident patients to the deceased donor waiting list (DDWL) poses different challenges. The European Committee on Organ Transplantation of the Council of Europe (CD-P-TO) has studied this phenomenon in the European setting. A questionnaire was circulated among the Council of Europe member states to inquire about the criteria applied for non-residents to access their DDWL. Information was compiled from 28 countries. Less than 1% of recipients of deceased donor organs were non-residents. Two countries never allow non-residents to access the DDWL, four allow access without restrictions and 22 only under specific conditions. Of those, most give access to non-resident patients already in their jurisdictions who are in a situation of vulnerability (urgent life-threatening conditions). In addition, patients may be given access: (i) after assessment by a specific committee (four countries); (ii) within the framework of official cooperation agreements (15 countries); and (iii) after patients have officially lived in the country for a minimum length of time (eight countries). The ethical and legal implications of these policies are discussed. Countries should collect accurate information about residency status of waitlisted patients. Transparent criteria for the access of non-residents to DDWL should be clearly defined at national level.

Results of the European EDITH nephrologist survey on factors influencing treatment modality choice for end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Access to forms of dialysis, kidney transplantation (Tx) and comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) varies across European countries. Attitudes of nephrologists, information provision and decision-making may influence this access and nephrologists may experience several barriers when providing treatments for ESKD. METHODS: We surveyed European nephrologists and kidney transplant surgeons treating adults with ESKD about factors influencing modality choice. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the opinions of professionals from European countries with low-, middle- and high-gross domestic product purchasing power parity (GDP PPP). RESULTS: In total, 681 professionals from 33 European countries participated. Respondents from all GDP categories indicated that ∼10% of patients received no information before the start of renal replacement therapy (RRT) (P = 0.106). Early information provision and more involvement of patients in decision-making were more frequently reported in middle- and high-GDP countries (P < 0.05). Professionals' attitudes towards several treatments became more positive with increasing GDP (P < 0.05). Uptake of in-centre haemodialysis was sufficient to 73% of respondents, but many wanted increased uptake of home dialysis, Tx and CCM. Respondents experienced different barriers according to availability of specific treatments in their centre. The occurrence of barriers (financial, staff shortage, lack of space/supplies and patient related) decreased with increasing GDP (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Differences in factors influencing modality choice when providing RRT or CCM to adults with ESKD were found among low-, middle- and high-GDP countries in Europe. Therefore a unique pan-European policy to improve access to treatments may be inefficient. Different policies for clusters of countries could be more useful.

Supplemented ERA-EDTA Registry data evaluated the frequency of dialysis, kidney transplantation, and comprehensive conservative management for patients with kidney failure in Europe.

The aims of this study were to determine the frequency of dialysis and kidney transplantation and to estimate the regularity of comprehensive conservative management (CCM) for patients with kidney failure in Europe. This study uses data from the ERA-EDTA Registry. Additionally, our study included supplemental data from Armenia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Kosovo, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Slovenia and additional data from Israel, Italy, Slovakia using other information sources. Through an online survey, responding nephrologists estimated the frequency of CCM (i.e. planned holistic care instead of kidney replacement therapy) in 33 countries. In 2016, the overall incidence of replacement therapy for kidney failure was 132 per million population (pmp), varying from 29 (Ukraine) to 251 pmp (Greece). On 31 December 2016, the overall prevalence of kidney replacement therapy was 985 pmp, ranging from 188 (Ukraine) to 1906 pmp (Portugal). The prevalence of peritoneal dialysis (114 pmp) and home hemodialysis (28 pmp) was highest in Cyprus and Denmark respectively. The kidney transplantation rate was nearly zero in some countries and highest in Spain (64 pmp). In 28 countries with five or more responding nephrologists, the median percentage of candidates for kidney replacement therapy who were offered CCM in 2018 varied between none (Slovakia and Slovenia) and 20% (Finland) whereas the median prevalence of CCM varied between none (Slovenia) and 15% (Hungary). Thus, the substantial differences across Europe in the frequency of kidney replacement therapy and CCM indicate the need for improvement in access to various treatment options for patients with kidney failure.

[Brain Death and Treatment of (Potential) Organ Donors and Interactions with their Relatives]. / Hirntod und Umgang mit (potenziellen) Organspendern und Angehörigen.

In recent years, the diagnosis of irreversible brain function loss in severely brain-damaged patients has gained in importance. Brain death, defined as an irreversible loss of the overall function of the cerebrum, cerebellum and brain stem, is a prerequisite for organ removal in the context of organ donation. The article presents the legal and organizational framework.Brain death is determined on the basis of the latest update of the guidelines of the German Medical Chamber (Bundesärztekammer) using a three-step scheme and consists of clinical and instrumental examinations. After the final diagnosis of brain death, the phase of organ-preserving treatment for the potential organ donor begins. In the case of patients who themselves or their relatives have not agreed to organ donation, the intensive care therapy must be terminated promptly. The legal framework for the determination of brain death and for the removal of organs from potential organ donors is provided by the Transplantation Act. The German Foundation for Organ Transplantation (DSO) is responsible for the coordination of organ donations in Germany. The DSO supports hospitals in many ways during the organ donation process, but also in training courses for medical staff on organ donation. The main contact person of the DSO is the transplant officer in the hospitals. The care of the relatives of a potential organ donor is of great importance.

[Declined Liver Grafts - Analysis of the German Donor Population from 2010 to 2018]. / Nicht transplantierte Spenderorgane ­ eine bundesweite Auswertung aller Organangebote für die Lebertransplantation von 2010 bis 2018.

BACKGROUND: The lack of suitable allografts limits the availability of liver transplantation in Germany. The quality of potentially available German donor livers has to date not been analyzed. METHODS: Analysis of all donors for potential liver transplantations reported to the Eurotransplant by the German Organ Transplantation Foundation from 2010 to 2018. Categorization of transplanted and discarded organs utilizing available histopathological reports and predefined extended criteria for organ donation. RESULTS: A total of 8594 livers were offered for transplantation, of which 15.2 % were discarded. During the analysis period the proportion of donor livers from extended criteria donors increased from 65 % to 70 % (p = 0.005). In 2018, 21.3 % of offered donor livers were discarded, more than half (56.4 %) of these organs came from donors meeting multiple extended criteria. Livers were significantly more likely to be not transplanted, when from donors of older age (> 65 years; 41 vs. 28 %), BMI > 30 kg/m2 (29 vs. 14 %) or elevated transaminase levels (all p < 0,001). CONCLUSION: Despite the consistent organ scarcity in Germany, a relevant amount of livers cannot be transplanted due to a multitude of organ quality limitations. This should stimulate the search for concepts such as normothermic ex vivo machine perfusion to evaluate, protect and potentially improve organ quality.

Donor heart and lung procurement: A consensus statement.

Heart and lung procurements are multiphased processes often accompanied by an array of complex logistics. Approaches to donor evaluation and management, organ procurement, and organ preservation vary among individual procurement teams. Because early graft failure remains a major cause of mortality in contemporary thoracic organ transplant recipients, we sought to establish some standardization in the procurement process. This paper, in this vein, represents an international consensus statement on donor heart and lung procurement and is designed to serve as a guide for physicians, surgeons, and other providers who manage donors to best optimize the clinical status for the procurement of both heart and lungs for transplantation. Donation after brain death (DBD) and donation after circulatory determination death (referred to as donation after circulatory death [DCD] for the remainder of the paper) for both heart and lung transplantation will be discussed in this paper. Although the data available on DCD heart donation are limited, information regarding the surgical technique for procurement is included within this consensus statement. Furthermore, this paper will focus on adult DBD and DCD heart and lung procurement. Currently, no certification, which is either recognized and/or endorsed by the transplant community at large, exists for the training of a cardiothoracic procurement surgeon. Nevertheless, establishing a training curriculum and credentialing requirements are beyond the scope of this paper.