A Single-center Exploration of Attitudes to Deceased Organ Donation Over Time Among Healthcare Staff in Intensive Care.

Background: Changes to deceased organ donation in the United Kingdom, including establishment of the specialist nurse for organ donation (SNOD) role, have resulted in increased numbers of donations. Have increasing numbers of donations altered attitudes among intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare professionals (ICU staff) to organ donation over time? Methods: A written survey of ICU staff at Nottingham University Hospitals National Health Service Trust was conducted across 2 wk in 2015, 2018, and 2020 (pre-COVID-19). Participants were asked to submit descriptors (words/phrases) they associated with 3 aspects of donation: donation after brain death (DBD), donation after circulatory death (DCD), and SNOD role. Three independent and blinded assessors categorized the descriptors as positive or negative in favorability. Thematic analysis was used to identify trends within each group of descriptors. Results: Across the 3 surveys, 281 responses were returned, containing a total of 2095 descriptors. Positive descriptors were found in 65% of DBD responses, 46% of DCD responses, and 92% of SNOD role. Over time, there was some evidence of increased polarization of opinion for DCD and to a smaller degree DBD. Attitude toward the SNOD role remained consistently highly favorable over time. Thematic analysis was correlated with the assessor favorability ratings to identify specific factors for positive or negative attitudes; this demonstrated the themes that were the most common causes of positive or negative attributions for each aspect of organ donation. Conclusions: ICU staff were found to be highly favorably positive toward the SNOD role, positive toward DBD, and negative toward DCD. Although we found broadly positive perceptions of the benefits of deceased organ donation, negative attitudes toward DCD centered on timescale and complexity of the donation process. Measurement of staff attitudes to organ donation may allow targeted interventions that support staff and improve patient and family care through the organ donation process.

The British transplantation society guidelines on organ donation from deceased donors after circulatory death.

Recipient outcomes after transplantation with organs from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors can compare favourably and even match recipient outcomes after transplantation with organs from donation after brain death donors. Success is dependent upon establishing common practices and accepted protocols that allow the safe sharing of DCD organs and maximise the use of the DCD donor pool. The British Transplantation Society 'Guideline on transplantation from deceased donors after circulatory death' has recently been updated. This manuscript summarises the relevant recommendations from chapters specifically related to organ donation.

Baseline Ethical Principles and a Framework for Evaluation of Policies: Recommendations From an International Consensus Forum.

To maintain public trust and integrity in organ and tissue donation and transplantation (OTDT), policymakers, governments, clinical leaders, and decision-makers must ensure that policies proposed to increase donation and transplant activity satisfy baseline ethical principles established by international agreement, declaration, and resolution. This article describes the output of the Baseline Ethical Domain group of an international forum designed to guide stakeholders in considering these aspects of their system. Methods: This Forum was initiated by Transplant Québec and co-hosted by the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Program partnered with multiple national and international donation and transplantation organizations. The domain working group members included administrative, clinical, and academic experts in deceased and living donation ethics and 2 Patient, Family, and Donor partners. Identification of internationally accepted baseline ethical principles was done after literature reviews performed by working group members, and a framework for consideration of existing or novel policies was completed over a series of virtual meetings from March to September 2021. Consensus on the framework was achieved by applying the nominal group technique. Recommendations: We used the 30 baseline ethical principles described in World Health Organization Guiding Principles, Declaration of Istanbul, and Barcelona Principles to generate an ethical framework-presented graphically as a spiral series of considerations-designed to assist decision makers in incorporating these ethical principles into practice and policy. We did not seek to determine what is ethical but instead described a method of evaluation for policy decisions. Conclusions: The proposed framework could be applied to new or existing OTDT policy decisions to facilitate the transformation of widely accepted ethical principles into practical evaluations. The framework includes adaptation for local contexts and could be applied broadly internationally.

Digitally-enabled remote critical care: the challenges of geography and history?

The COVID-19 pandemic has rejuvenated interest in the possibility of using telemedicine as an approach to providing critical care services to patients in remote areas. Conceptual and governance considerations remain unaddressed. We summarise the first steps in a recent collaborative effort between key organisations in Australia, India, New Zealand, and the UK, and call for an international consensus on standards with due considerations to governance and regulation of this emerging clinical practice.

Decision-making About Premortem Interventions for Donation: Navigating Legal and Ethical Complexities.

Premortem interventions (PMIs) for organ donation play a vital role in preserving opportunities for deceased donation or increasing the chances of successful transplantation of donor organs. Although ethical considerations relating to use of particular PMIs have been well explored, the ethical and legal aspects of decision-making about the use of PMIs have received comparatively little attention. In many countries, there is significant uncertainty regarding whether PMIs are lawful or, if they are, who can authorize them. Furthermore, emphasis on consideration of therapeutic goals in substitute decision-making frameworks may discourage consideration of donation goals. In this article, we examine the fundamental questions of who should have the authority to make decisions about the use of PMIs on behalf of a potential donor and how such decisions should be made. We draw on international examples of legal reform that have sought to clarify the legal position in relation to administering PMIs and identify potential elements of an effective regulatory model for PMIs. In doing so, we argue that reforms are needed in many countries to provide legal certainty for clinicians who are responsible for supporting decision-making about PMIs and to ensure that the goals and preferences of potential donors are accorded due consideration in the decision-making process.

A national pilot of donation after circulatory death (DCD) heart transplantation within the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom (UK) was one of the first countries to pioneer heart transplantation from donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors. To facilitate equity of access to DCD hearts by all UK heart transplant centers and expand the retrieval zone nationwide, a Joint Innovation Fund (JIF) pilot was provided by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) and NHS England (NHSE). The activity and outcomes of this national DCD heart pilot program are reported. METHODS: This is a national multi-center, retrospective cohort study examining early outcomes of DCD heart transplants performed across 7 heart transplant centers, adult and pediatric, throughout the UK. Hearts were retrieved using the direct procurement and perfusion (DPP) technique by 3 specialist retrieval teams trained in ex-situ normothermic machine perfusion. Outcomes were compared against DCD heart transplants before the national pilot era and against contemporaneous donation after brain death (DBD) heart transplants, and analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis, chi-square test, and Wilcoxon's rank-sum. RESULTS: From September 7, 2020 to February 28, 2022, 215 potential DCD hearts were offered of which 98 (46%) were accepted and attended. There were 77 potential donors (36%) which proceeded to death within 2 hours, with 57 (27%) donor hearts successfully retrieved and perfused ex situ and 50 (23%) DCD hearts going on to be transplanted. During this same period, 179 DBD hearts were transplanted. Overall, there was no difference in the 30-day survival rate between DCD and DBD (94% vs 93%) or 90 day survival (90% vs 90%) respectively. There was a higher rate of ECMO use post-DCD heart transplants compared to DBD (40% vs 16%, p = 0.0006), and DCD hearts in the pre pilot era, (17%, p = 0.002). There was no difference in length of ICU stay (9 DCD vs 8 days DBD, p = 0.13) nor hospital stay (28 DCD vs 27 DBD days, p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: During this pilot study, 3 specialist retrieval teams were able to retrieve DCD hearts nationally for all 7 UK heart transplant centers. DCD donors increased overall heart transplantation in the UK by 28% with equivalent early posttransplant survival compared with DBD donors.

Vaccine Effectiveness Against the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.529 Omicron Variant in Solid Organ and Islet Transplant Recipients in England: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of vaccines against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.529 Omicron variant in immunosuppressed solid organ and islet transplant (SOT) recipients is unclear. METHODS: National registries in England were linked to identify SARS-CoV-2 positive tests, noninjury hospitalization within 14 d, and deaths within 28 d between December 7, 2020, and March 31, 2022 in adult SOT recipients. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for infection, and hospitalization or death, were adjusted for recipient demographics and calendar month for the Omicron-dominant period (December 20, 2021, to March 31, 2022). Mortality risk following SARS-CoV-2 infection was adjusted for recipient demographics and dominant variant using a Cox proportional-hazards model for the entire time period. RESULTS: During the Omicron-dominant period, infection IRRs (95% confidence intervals) were higher in those receiving 2, 3, and 4 vaccine doses than in unvaccinated patients (1.25 [1.08-1.45], 1.46 [1.28-1.67], and 1.79 [1.54-2.06], respectively). However, hospitalization or death IRRs during this period were lower in those receiving 3 or 4 vaccine doses than in unvaccinated patients (0.62 [0.45-0.86] and 0.39 [0.26-0.58], respectively). Risk-adjusted analyses for deaths after SARS-CoV-2 infection between December 7, 2020, and March 31, 2022, found hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.67 (0.46-0.98), 0.46 (0.30-0.69), and 0.18 (0.09-0.35) for those with 2, 3, and 4 vaccine doses, respectively, when compared with the unvaccinated group. CONCLUSIONS: In immunosuppressed SOT recipients, vaccination is associated with incremental, dose-dependent protection against hospitalization or death after SARS-CoV-2 infection, including against the Omicron variant.

A New Defense of Brain Death as the Death of the Human Organism.

This paper provides a new rationale for equating brain death with the death of the human organism, in light of well-known criticisms made by Alan D Shewmon, Franklin Miller and Robert Truog and a number of other writers. We claim that these criticisms can be answered, but only if we accept that we have slightly redefined the concept of death when equating brain death with death simpliciter. Accordingly, much of the paper defends the legitimacy of redefining death against objections, before turning to the specific task of defending a new rationale for equating brain death with death as slightly redefined.

Corrigendum: An Inventory of Deceased Donor Family Care and Contact Between Donor Families and Recipients in 15 European Countries.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/ti.2021.10188.].

Comparing Deceased Organ Donation Performance in Two Countries that Use Different Metrics: Comparing Apples With Apples.

Organ donation networks audit and report on national or regional organ donation performance, however there are inconsistencies in the metrics and definitions used, rendering comparisons difficult or inappropriate. This is despite multiple attempts exploring the possibility for convergently evolving audits so that collectives of donation networks might transparently share data and practice and then target system interventions. This paper represents a collaboration between the United Kingdom and Australian organ donation organisations which aimed to understand the intricacies of our respective auditing systems, compare the metrics and definitions they employ and ultimately assess their level of comparability. This point of view outlines the historical context underlying the development of the auditing tools, demonstrates their differences to the Critical Pathway proposed as a common tool a decade ago and presents a side-by-side comparison of donation definitions, metrics and data for the 2019 calendar year. There were significant differences in donation definition terminology, metrics and overall structure of the audits. Fitting the audits to a tiered scaffold allowed for reasonable comparisons however this required substantial effort and understanding of nuance. Direct comparison of international and inter-regional donation performance is challenging and would benefit from consistent auditing processes across organisations.

Tackling organ donation among minority ethnic communities in the UK-a whole systems approach.

INTRODUCTION: There are inequalities experienced by minority ethnic groups in the UK in organ donation and transplant services, with significant variation in relation to demand for, access to and waiting times for these services. SOURCES OF DATA: A narrative review of research obtained via several databases, including PubMed and Medline, was conducted. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: A vision of equity and inclusion, which meets the need of the heterogeneous UK population, can only be realized by adopting a culturally competent approach to systems-wide working in organ donation in four core areas-transplant services; workforce and staff training; diversity and inclusion research; and public engagement. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Most of the data on the background of organ donors and recipients use general categories such as Asian or Black. We need to progress to a position of more granular data by more specific ethnicity so that we can better understand the trends and target action accordingly. GROWING POINTS: By positively embracing the heterogeneity of the UK population, demand for transplantation can be reduced through a sustained commitment to public health interventions and culturally competent approaches in the management of long-term conditions. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Improved access to transplantation and reduced waiting times can be achieved to increase the number of organ donors from minority ethnic groups if there are concerted and adequately resourced culturally competent interventions with concomitant evaluation programmes.

The Global Impact of COVID-19 on Solid Organ Transplantation: Two Years Into a Pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major global impact on solid organ transplantation (SOT). An estimated 16% global reduction in transplant activity occurred over the course of 2020, most markedly impacting kidney transplant and living donor programs, resulting in substantial knock-on effects for waitlisted patients. The increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection risk and excess deaths in transplant candidates has resulted in substantial effort to prioritize the safe restart and continuation of transplant programs over the second year of the pandemic, with transplant rates returning towards prepandemic levels. Over the past 2 y, COVID-19 mortality in SOT recipients has fallen from 20%-25% to 8%-10%, attributed to the increased and early availability of SARS-CoV-2 testing, adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions, development of novel treatments, and vaccination. Despite these positive steps, transplant programs and SOT recipients continue to face challenges. Vaccine efficacy in SOT recipients is substantially lower than the general population and SOT recipients remain at an increased risk of adverse outcomes if they develop COVID-19. SOT recipients and transplant teams need to remain vigilant and ongoing adherence to nonpharmaceutical interventions appears essential. In this review, we summarize the global impact of COVID-19 on transplant activity, donor evaluation, and patient outcomes over the past 2 y, discuss the current strategies aimed at preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2 infection in SOT recipients, and based on lessons learnt from this pandemic, propose steps the transplant community could consider as preparation for future pandemics.

CRITCON-Pandemic levels: A stepwise ethical approach to clinician responsibility.

CRITCON-Pandemic levels with an associated operational responsibility matrix were recently published by the Intensive Care Society as a modification to Winter Flu CRITCON levels, to better account for differences between a winter flu surge in critical care activity and the capacity challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we propose an expansion and explanation of the operational matrix to suggest a stepwise ethical approach to clinician responsibility. We propose and outline the main ethical risks created at each level and discuss how those risks can be mitigated through a balanced application of the predominant ethical principle which in turn provides practical guidance to clinician responsibility. We thus seek to specify the ethical and legal principles that should be used in applying the operational matrix, and what the practical effects could be.

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.