Co-design and usability of an interactive web-based fertility decision aid for transgender youth and young adults.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a patient- and family-centered Aid For Fertility-Related Medical Decisions (AFFRMED) interactive website targeted for transgender and nonbinary (TNB) youth/young adults and their parents to facilitate shared decision-making about fertility preservation interventions through user-centered participatory design. METHOD: TNB youth/young adults interested in or currently receiving pubertal suppression or gender-affirming hormone treatment and parents of eligible TNB youth/young adults were recruited to participate in a series of iterative human-centered co-design sessions to develop an initial AFFRMED prototype. Subsequently, TNB youth/young adults and parents of TNB youth/young adults were recruited for usability testing interviews, involving measures of usability (i.e., After Scenario Questionnaire, Net Promotor Score, System Usability Scale). RESULTS: Twenty-seven participants completed 18 iterative co-design sessions and provided feedback on 10 versions of AFFRMED (16 TNB youth/young adults and 11 parents). Nine TNB youth/young adults and six parents completed individual usability testing interviews. Overall, participants rated AFFRMED highly on measures of acceptability, appropriateness, usability, and satisfaction. However, scores varied by treatment cohort, with TNB youth interested in or currently receiving pubertal suppression treatment reporting the lowest usability scores. CONCLUSIONS: We co-created a youth- and family-centered fertility decision aid prototype that provides education and decision support in an online, interactive format. Future directions include testing the efficacy of the decision aid in improving fertility and fertility preservation knowledge, decisional self-efficacy, and decision satisfaction.

Knowledge gaps in heart and lung donation after the circulatory determination of death: Report of a workshop of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

In a workshop sponsored by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, experts identified current knowledge gaps and research opportunities in the scientific, conceptual, and ethical understanding of organ donation after the circulatory determination of death and its technologies. To minimize organ injury from warm ischemia and produce better recipient outcomes, innovative techniques to perfuse and oxygenate organs postmortem in situ, such as thoracoabdominal normothermic regional perfusion, are being implemented in several medical centers in the US and elsewhere. These technologies have improved organ outcomes but have raised ethical and legal questions. Re-establishing donor circulation postmortem can be viewed as invalidating the condition of permanent cessation of circulation on which the earlier death determination was made and clamping arch vessels to exclude brain circulation can be viewed as inducing brain death. Alternatively, TA-NRP can be viewed as localized in-situ organ perfusion, not whole-body resuscitation, that does not invalidate death determination. Further scientific, conceptual, and ethical studies, such as those identified in this workshop, can inform and help resolve controversies raised by this practice.

Development of a culturally targeted chatbot to inform living kidney donor candidates of African ancestry about APOL1 genetic testing: a mixed methods study.

Clinical chatbots are increasingly used to help integrate genetic testing into clinical contexts, but no chatbot exists for Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic testing of living kidney donor (LKD) candidates of African ancestry. Our study aimed to culturally adapt and assess perceptions of the Gia® chatbot to help integrate APOL1 testing into LKD evaluation. Ten focus groups and post-focus group surveys were conducted with 54 LKDs, community members, and kidney transplant recipients of African ancestry. Data were analyzed through thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Key themes about making Gia culturally targeted included ensuring: (1) transparency by providing Black LKDs' testimonials, explaining patient privacy and confidentiality protections, and explaining how genetic testing can help LKD evaluation; (2) content is informative by educating Black LKDs about APOL1 testing instead of aiming to convince them to undergo testing, presenting statistics, and describing how genetic discrimination is legally prevented; and (3) content avoids stigma about living donation in the Black community. Most agreed Gia was neutral and unbiased (82%), trustworthy (82%), and words, phrases, and expressions were familiar to the intended audience (85%). Our culturally adapted APOL1 Gia chatbot was well regarded. Future research should assess how this chatbot could supplement provider discussion prior to genetic testing to scale APOL1 counseling and testing for LKD candidate clinical evaluation.

Disparities Persist Among Hispanic Patients: Completing Evaluation, Waitlisting, and Receiving a Kidney Transplant.

Background: Hispanic patients receive disproportionately fewer kidney transplants (KT) than non-Hispanic White (NHW) patients. In this observational study, we evaluated disparities in completing evaluation steps to KT among Hispanic patients. Methods: Using medical records of Hispanic and NHW patients initiating evaluation at 4 transplant centers from January 2011 to March 2020, we performed sequential Cox models to compare Hispanic versus NHW patients reaching each step of the evaluation process until receiving a KT. Results: Among all 5197 patients (Hispanic n = 2473; NHW n = 2724) initiating evaluation, Hispanic patients had 8% lower risk to be approved by the kidney pancreas (KP) committee than NHW patients (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.86-0.98; P = 0.015). Among 3492 patients approved by the KP committee, Hispanic patients had 13% lower risk to be waitlisted than NHW patients (aHR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.94; P = 0.004). Among 3382 patients who were waitlisted, Hispanic patients had 11% lower risk than NHW patients to receive KT (aHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.97; P = 0.011). Among all patients initiating evaluation, Hispanic patients had a 16% lower risk than NHW patients to reach KT (aHR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.92; P = 0.0002). Conclusions: Our study found that disproportionately fewer Hispanic patients were approved by the KP committee, were waitlisted, and received a KT, particularly a living donor kidney transplant, than NHW patients. Closer oversight of the evaluation process may help patients overcome challenges in access to KT.

Improving Health Equity in Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Application of an Implementation Science Framework.

BACKGROUND: Interventions to improve racial equity in access to living donor kidney transplants (LDKT) have focused primarily on patients, ignoring the contributions of clinicians, transplant centers, and health system factors. Obtaining access to LDKT is a complex, multi-step process involving patients, their families, clinicians, and health system functions. An implementation science framework can help elucidate multi-level barriers to achieving racial equity in LDKT and guide the implementation of interventions targeted at all levels. METHODS: We adopted the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM), an implementation science framework for racial equity in LDKT. The purpose was to provide a guide for assessment, inform intervention design, and support planning for the implementation of interventions. RESULTS: We applied 4 main PRISM domains to racial equity in LDKT: Organizational Characteristics, Program Components, External Environment, and Patient Characteristics. We specified elements within each domain that consider perspectives of the health system, transplant center, clinical staff, and patients. CONCLUSION: The applied PRISM framework provides a foundation for the examination of multi-level influences across the entirety of LDKT care. Researchers, quality improvement staff, and clinicians can use the applied PRISM framework to guide the assessment of inequities, support collaborative intervention development, monitor intervention implementation, and inform resource allocation to improve equity in access to LDKT.

Development and Validation of the Rating of CKD Knowledge Among Older Adults (Know-CKD) With Kidney Failure.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Few older adults with kidney failure engage in shared decision making (SDM) for kidney replacement therapy. The lack of instruments to assess SDM-relevant knowledge domains may contribute to this. We assessed the reliability and validity of a new instrument, the Rating of CKD Knowledge Older Adults (Know-CKD). STUDY DESIGN: Multistage process, including a stakeholder-engaged development phase, pilot testing, and validation of a knowledge instrument using a cross-sectional survey of older adults with CKD. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 363 patients aged 70+years with nondialysis advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]<30mL/min/1.73m2) in Boston, Chicago, Portland, ME, and San Diego from June 2018 and January 2020. EXPOSURE: Educational level, higher literacy (Single Item Literacy Screener [SILS]) and numeracy (Subjective Numeracy Scale [SNS]), having participated in clinic-sponsored dialysis education, and self-reported "feeling informed" about options for treatment. OUTCOME: Validity and reliability of the Know-CKD instrument. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Reliability was assessed with the Kuder-Richardson-20 coefficient. Construct validity was demonstrated by testing a priori hypotheses using t test, analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests, and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) participant age was 77.6±5.9 years, and mean eGFR was 22.7±7.2mL/min/1.73m2; 281 participants (78%) self-reported as White. The 12-item Know-CKD assessment had good reliability (Kuder-Richardson-20 reliability coefficient=0.75), and a mean score of 58.2% ± 22.3 SD. The subscales did not attain acceptable reliability. The proportion answering correctly on each item ranged from 20.1% to 91.7%. In examining construct validity, the hypothesized associations held; Know-CKD significantly associated with higher education (ß=6.98 [95% CI, 1.34-12.61], P=0.02), health literacy (ß = -12.67 [95% CI, -19.49 to-5.86], P≤0.001), numeracy per 10% higher (ß=1.85 [95% CI, 1.02-2.69], P≤0.001), and attendance at dialysis class (ß=18.28 [95% CI, 13.30-23.27], P≤0.001). These associations were also observed for the subscales except for prognosis (not associated with literacy or numeracy). LIMITATIONS: Know-CKD is only available in English and has been used only in research settings. CONCLUSIONS: For older adults facing dialysis initiation decisions, Know-CKD is a valid, reliable, and easy to administer measure of knowledge. Further research should examine the relationship of kidney disease knowledge and SDM, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. PLAIN-LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The Rating of CKD Knowledge Among Older Adults (Know-CKD) study measures knowledge of chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is designed for older adults. Most existing knowledge measures for CKD focus on people of all ages and all CKD stages. This measure is useful because it will allow researchers to assess how well patient education efforts are working. Patient education is a way to help patients make decisions about their care. We describe how the measure was developed by a team of doctors, researchers, and patients, and how the measure performed among persons with advanced CKD aged 70 years and older. Know-CKD can inform efforts to improve shared decision-making research and practice for older patients with kidney disease.

Defining the Need for Causal Inference to Understand the Impact of Social Determinants of Health: A Primer on Behalf of the Consortium for the Holistic Assessment of Risk in Transplantation (CHART).

Objective: This study aims to introduce key concepts and methods that inform the design of studies that seek to quantify the causal effect of social determinants of health (SDOH) on access to and outcomes following organ transplant. Background: The causal pathways between SDOH and transplant outcomes are poorly understood. This is partially due to the unstandardized and incomplete capture of the complex interactions between patients, their neighborhood environments, the tertiary care system, and structural factors that impact access and outcomes. Designing studies to quantify the causal impact of these factors on transplant access and outcomes requires an understanding of the fundamental concepts of causal inference. Methods: We present an overview of fundamental concepts in causal inference, including the potential outcomes framework and direct acyclic graphs. We discuss how to conceptualize SDOH in a causal framework and provide applied examples to illustrate how bias is introduced. Results: There is a need for direct measures of SDOH, increased measurement of latent and mediating variables, and multi-level frameworks for research that examine health inequities across multiple health systems to generalize results. We illustrate that biases can arise due to socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, and incongruencies in language between the patient and clinician. Conclusions: Progress towards an equitable transplant system requires establishing causal pathways between psychosocial risk factors, access, and outcomes. This is predicated on accurate and precise quantification of social risk, best facilitated by improved organization of health system data and multicenter efforts to collect and learn from it in ways relevant to specialties and service lines.

Complex Patient Perspectives on Evolving Diverticulitis Treatment Patient Perspectives on Diverticulitis.

Background: Despite evidence that antibiotics may not be necessary to treat acute uncomplicated diverticulitis, they remain the mainstay of treatment in the United States. A randomized controlled trial evaluating antibiotic effectiveness could accelerate implementation of an antibiotic-free treatment strategy, but patients may be unwilling to participate. Objective: This study aims to assess patients' attitudes regarding participation in a randomized trial of antibiotics versus placebo for acute diverticulitis, including willingness to participate. Design: This is a mixed-methods study with qualitative and descriptive methods. Settings: Interviews were conducted in a quaternary care emergency department and surveys were administered virtually through a web-based portal. Patients: Patients with either current or previous acute uncomplicated diverticulitis participated. Interventions: Patients underwent semi-structured interviews or completed a web-based survey. Main Outcome measures: Rates of willingness to participate in a randomized controlled trial was measured. Salient factors related to healthcare decision-making were also identified and analyzed. Results: Thirteen patients completed an interview. Reasons to participate included a desire to help others or contribute to scientific knowledge. Doubts about the efficacy of observation as a treatment method were the main barrier to participation. In a survey of 218 subjects, 62% of respondents reported willingness to participate in a randomized clinical trial. "What my doctor thinks," followed by "What I've experienced in the past" were the most important decision-making factors. Limitations: There is possible selection bias inherent to using a study to evaluate willingness to participate in a study. Also, the population sampled was disproportionately White compared to the population affected by diverticulitis. Conclusions: Patients with acute uncomplicated diverticulitis maintain complex and varying perceptions of the use of antibiotics. Most surveyed patients would be willing to participate in a trial of antibiotics versus placebo. Our findings support a trial's feasibility and facilitate an informed approach to recruitment and consent.

Ethical and Psychosocial Factors in the Decision-Making and Informed Consent Process for Upper Extremity Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation: A Mixed-Methods Study.

Although upper extremity (UE) vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) aims to improve quality of life, relatively few have been performed worldwide to support evidence-based treatment and informed decision-making. Methods: We qualitatively examined factors contributing to anticipated and actual decision-making about UE VCA and perceptions of the elements of informed consent among people with UE amputations, and UE VCA candidates, participants, and recipients through in-depth interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Results: Fifty individuals participated; most were male (78%) and had a mean age of 45 y and a unilateral amputation (84%). One-third (35%) were "a lot" or "completely" willing to pursue UE VCA. UE VCA decision-making themes included the utility of UE VCA, psychosocial impact of UE VCA and amputation on individuals' lives, altruism, and anticipated burden of UE VCA on lifestyle. Most respondents who underwent UE VCA evaluation (n = 8/10) perceived having no reasonable treatment alternatives. Generally, respondents (n = 50) recognized the potential for familial, societal, cultural, medical, and self-driven pressures to pursue UE VCA among individuals with amputations. Some (n = 9/50, 18%) reported personally feeling "a little," "somewhat," "a lot," or "completely" pressured to pursue UE VCA. Respondents recommended that individuals be informed about the option of UE VCA near the amputation date. Conclusions: Our study identified psychosocial and other factors affecting decision-making about UE VCA, which should be addressed to enhance informed consent. Study participants' perceptions and preferences about UE VCA suggest re-examination of assumptions guiding the UE VCA clinical evaluation process.

Direct and Indirect Effects of a Web-Based Educational and Communication Skills Intervention "Promotoras de Donación" to Increase Donor Designation in Latinx Communities: Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Latinx populations are severely underrepresented among organ donors compared with the non-Hispanic White population. The Promotoras de Donación e-learning module was developed to train Latinx lay health educators (ie, promotoras) to discuss deceased organ donation and promote donor designation within their communities. OBJECTIVE: This paper described the results of 2 studies designed to assess the direct and indirect effects of the module on promotoras' and mature Latinas' organ donation and donor designation knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. METHODS: In partnership with 4 community-based promotoras organizations, we designed 2 nonrandomized, quasiexperimental pragmatic studies to evaluate the Promotoras de Donación e-learning module, with participating promotoras and mature Latinas serving as their own controls. Brief surveys were administered to participating promotoras before and after module completion to assess changes in organ donation knowledge and support and communication confidence (study 1). Promotoras participating in the first study were asked to hold at least 2 group conversations about organ donation and donor designation with mature Latinas (study 2); paper-pencil surveys were completed by all participants before and after the group conversations. Descriptive statistics, means and SDs, and counts and percentages were used as appropriate to categorize the samples. Paired sample 2-tailed t test was used to assess changes in knowledge of and support for organ donation and confidence in discussing donation and promoting donor designation from pre- to posttest. RESULTS: Overall, 40 promotoras completed this module (study 1). Increases in organ donation knowledge (mean 6.0, SD 1.9 to mean 6.2, SD 2.9) and support (mean 3.4, SD 0.9 to mean 3.6, SD 0.9) were observed from pre- to posttest; however, these changes did not reach statistical significance. A statistically significant increase in communication confidence was found (mean 692.1, SD 232.4 to mean 852.3, SD 139.7; P=.01). The module was well received, with most participants deeming it well organized, presenting new information, and providing realistic and helpful portrayals of donation conversations. A total of 52 group discussions with 375 attendees were led by 25 promotoras (study 2). The trained promotora-led group discussions about organ donation resulted in increased support for organ donation in promotoras and mature Latinas from pre- to posttest. Knowledge of the steps to become an organ donor and belief that the process is easy to perform increased in mature Latinas from pre- to posttest by 30.7% and 15.2%, respectively. In total, 5.6% (21/375) of attendees submitted completed organ donation registration forms. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation provides preliminary support for the module's direct and indirect effects on organ donation knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. The need for additional modifications to and future evaluations of the module are discussed.

Patient definitions of transplant success in upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation: A mixed-methods study.

Objective: Upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation is an innovative treatment option for people with upper extremity amputations. Limited patient-relevant long-term outcomes data about transplant success may impede patients' informed treatment decision-making. We assessed perceptions of what constitutes upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation success among individuals with upper extremity amputations. Methods: This multisite study entailed interviews and focus groups with individuals with upper extremity amputations and upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation candidates, participants, and recipients. We examined perceptions of transplant success and preferences for five upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation outcomes. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis; and quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: In all, 50 individuals participated in interviews (61.7% participation rate), and 37 participated in nine focus groups (75.5% participation rate). Most were White (72%, 73%), had a mean age of 45 and 48 years, and had a unilateral amputation (84%, 59%), respectively. Participants conceptualized upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation success as transplant outcomes: (1) restoring function and sensation to enable new activities; (2) accepting the transplanted limb into one's identity and appearance; (3) not having transplant rejection; (4) attaining greater quality of life compared to prosthetics; and (5) ensuring benefits outweigh risks. Participants rated their most important upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation outcomes as follows: not having transplant rejection, not developing health complications, grasping objects, feeling touch and temperature, and accepting the upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation into your identity. Conclusion: Individuals with upper extremity amputations maintain several conceptions of vascularized composite allotransplantation success, spanning functional, psychosocial, clinical, and quality of life outcomes. Providers should address patients' conceptions of success to improve informed consent discussions and outcomes reporting for upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation.

Patient preferences of patient selection criteria for upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation: A qualitative study.

Background: Upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation is a life-enhancing reconstructive treatment option that aims to improve recipients' quality of life and maximize function. This study assessed upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation patient selection criteria perceptions among individuals with upper extremity limb loss. The perceptions of individuals with upper extremity limb loss on patient selection criteria may enable vascularized composite allotransplantation centers to improve criteria to avoid mismatched expectations about the posttransplant vascularized composite allotransplantation experience and outcomes. Realistic patient expectations may increase patient adherence, improve outcomes, and reduce vascularized composite allotransplantation graft loss. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with civilian and military service members with upper extremity limb loss and upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation candidates, participants, and recipients from three US institutions. Interviews assessed perceptions of patient selection criteria for suitability as a candidate for upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation. Thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data. Results: A total of 50 individuals participated (66% participation rate). Most participants were male (78%), White (72%), with a unilateral limb loss (84%), and a mean age of 45 years. Six themes emerged regarding upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation patient selection criteria, including support for candidates who: (1) are of younger age, (2) are in good physical health, (3) have mental stability, (4) are willing to "put in the work," (5) have specific amputation characteristics, and (6) have sufficient social support. Patients had preferences about selecting candidates with unilateral versus bilateral limb loss. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that numerous factors, including medical, social, and psychological characteristics, inform patients' perceptions of patient selection criteria for upper extremity vascularized composite allotransplantation. Patient perceptions of patient selection criteria should inform the development of validated screening measures that optimize patient outcomes.

Implementation of a culturally competent APOL1 genetic testing programme into living donor evaluation: A two-site, non-randomised, pre-post trial design.

INTRODUCTION: While living donor (LD) kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with kidney failure, LDs assume a higher risk of future kidney failure themselves. LDs of African ancestry have an even greater risk of kidney failure post-donation than White LDs. Because evidence suggests that Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) risk variants contribute to this greater risk, transplant nephrologists are increasingly using APOL1 genetic testing to evaluate LD candidates of African ancestry. However, nephrologists do not consistently perform genetic counselling with LD candidates about APOL1 due to a lack of knowledge and skill in counselling. Without proper counselling, APOL1 testing will magnify LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, jeopardising their informed consent. Given cultural concerns about genetic testing among people of African ancestry, protecting LD candidates' safety is essential to improve informed decisions about donating. Clinical 'chatbots', mobile apps that provide genetic information to patients, can improve informed treatment decisions. No chatbot on APOL1 is available and no nephrologist training programmes are available to provide culturally competent counselling to LDs about APOL1. Given the shortage of genetic counsellors, increasing nephrologists' genetic literacy is critical to integrating genetic testing into practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a non-randomised, pre-post trial design in two transplant centres (Chicago, IL, and Washington, DC), we will evaluate the effectiveness of culturally competent APOL1 testing, chatbot and counselling on LD candidates' decisional conflict about donating, preparedness for decision-making, willingness to donate and satisfaction with informed consent and longitudinally evaluate the implementation of this intervention into clinical practice using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will create a model for APOL1 testing of LDs of African ancestry, which can be implemented nationally via implementation science approaches. APOL1 will serve as a model for integrating culturally competent genetic testing into transplant and other practices to improve informed consent. This study involves human participants and was approved by Northwestern University IRB (STU00214038). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04910867. Registered 8 May 2021, https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AWZ6&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=7&cx=-8jv7m2 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04999436. Registered 5 November 2021, https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AYWW&selectaction=Edit&uid=U0001PPF&ts=11&cx=9tny7v.

Challenges of Integrating APOL1 Genetic Test Results into the Electronic Health Record.

OBJECTIVES: Integrating genetic test results into the electronic health record (EHR) is essential for integrating genetic testing into clinical practice. This article describes the organizational challenges of integrating discrete apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) genetic test results into the EHR for a research study on culturally sensitive genetic counseling for living kidney donors. METHODS: We convened a multidisciplinary team across three institutions (Northwestern University, Northwestern Memorial HealthCare [NMHC], and OHSU Knight Diagnostic Laboratories [KDL]), including researchers, physicians, clinical information technology, and project management. Through a series of meetings over a year between the team and the genetic testing laboratory, we explored and adjusted our EHR integration plan based on regulatory and budgetary constraints. RESULTS: Our original proposal was to transmit results from KDL to NMHC as structured data sent via Health Level Seven (HL7) v2 message. This was ultimately deemed infeasible given the time and resources required to establish the interface, and the low number of samples to be processed for the study (n = 316). We next explored the use of Epic's Care Everywhere interoperability platform, but learned it was not possible as a laboratory test ordered for a research study; even though our intent was to study the APOL1 genetic test result's clinical use and impact, test results were still considered "research results." Faced with two remaining options-downloading a PDF from the KDL laboratory portal or scanning a faxed result from KDL-only a PDF of the APOL1 test result could be integrated into the EHR, reinforcing the status quo. CONCLUSION: Even with early and ongoing stakeholder engagement, dedicated project management, and funding, unanticipated implementation challenges-especially for research projects-can result in drastic design tradeoffs.

Financial, policy, and ethical barriers to the expansion of living donor liver transplant: Meeting report from a living donor liver transplant consensus conference.

INTRODUCTION: In October 2021, the American Society of Transplantation (AST) hosted a virtual consensus conference aimed at identifying and addressing barriers to the broader, safe expansion of living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) throughout the United States (US). METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of LDLT experts convened to address issues related to financial implications on the donor, transplant center crisis management, regulatory and oversight policies, and ethical considerations by assessing the relative significance of issues in preventing LDLT growth, with proposed strategies to overcome barriers. RESULTS: Living liver donors endure multiple obstacles including financial instability, loss of job security, and potential morbidity. These concerns, along with other center, state, and federal specific policies can be perceived as significant barriers to expanding LDLT. Donor safety is of paramount importance to the transplant community; however, regulatory and oversight policies aimed at ensuring donor safety can be viewed as ambiguous and complicated leading to time-consuming evaluations that may deter donor motivation and program expansion. CONCLUSION: Transplant programs need to establish appropriate crisis management plans to mitigate potential negative donor outcomes and ensure program viability and stability. Finally, ethical aspects, including informed consent for high-risk recipients and use of non-directed donors, can be perceived as additional barriers to expanding LDLT.