How Inaccurate Metrics Hide the True Potential for Organ Donation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is a discrepancy between the reported increase in donor conversion rates and the number of organs available for transplant. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data obtained from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from January 2003 through December 2015 was performed. The primary outcomes were the (1) number of brain-dead donors from whom solid organs were recovered and (2) number of the organs transplanted. Descriptive statistics and growth plots were used to examine the trajectory of organ donation, recovery, and transplantation outcomes over the 11-year period. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2006, the number of brain-dead donors increased from 6187 to 7375, remaining relatively stable at approximately 7200 thereafter. The average eligible deaths per organ procurement organization dropped from 182.7 (standard deviation [SD]: 131.3) in 2003 to 149.3 (SD: 111.4) in 2015. This suggests a total of 12 493 unrealized potential donors (2006-2015). CONCLUSIONS: Since 2006, a steady decline in the number of donor-eligible deaths was reported. In 2003, the reported eligible deaths was 11 326. This number peaked in 2004 at 11 346, tumbling to 9781 eligible donors in 2015, despite a 9% increase in the US population. From 2006 to 2015, the data indicate an artificial depression and underestimation of the true potential of brain-dead donors in the United States of conservatively 12 493 donors or 39 728 missing organs. New metrics providing objective but verifiable counts of the donor pool are needed.

Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU: Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians/Association of Organ Procurement Organizations Consensus Statement.

This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.

Zero risk tolerance costs lives: loss of transplantable organs due to human immunodeficiency virus nucleic acid testing of potential donors.

Patients' deaths due to the organ donor shortage make it imperative that every suitable organ be transplanted. False-positive results of tests for infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) result in lost organs. A survey of US organ procurement organizations collected the numbers of donors and ruled-out potential donors who had a positive result on an HIV test from January 1,2006, to October 31, 2008. Sixty-two percent of US organ procurement organizations participated. Of the 12397 donor/nondonor cases, 56 (0.45%) had an initial positive result on an HIV antibody or HIV nucleic acid test, and only 8 (14.3%) of those were confirmed positive. Of the false-positive results, 50% were from HIV antibody tests and 50% were from HIV nucleic acid tests. Organs are a scarce, finite, and perishable resource. Use of HIV antibody testing has produced a remarkably safe track record of avoiding HIV transmission, with 22 years of nonoccurrence between transmissions. Because false positives occur with any test, including the HIV Ab test, adding nucleic acid testing to the standard donor testing panel doubles the number of false-positive HIV test results and thus the number of medically suitable donors lost. The required HIV antibody test is 99.99% effective in preventing transmission of the HIV virus. Adding the HIV nucleic acid test to routine organ donor screening could result in as many as 761 to 1551 unnecessary deaths of patients between HIV transmission events because medically suitable organs are wasted.

US organ donation breakthrough collaborative increases organ donation.

More than 92000 Americans are on waiting lists for organ transplants, and an average of 17 of them die each day while waiting. The US Organ Donation Breakthrough Collaborative (ODBC), which began in 2003 at the request of the Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services, was a formal, concerted effort of the donation and transplantation community to bring about a major change to improve the organ donation system. The nationwide Collaborative was housed within a Health and Human Services agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Division of Transplantation, and included participation of the organ procurement organizations (OPOs) throughout the United States and the American hospitals with the largest organ-donor potential. HRSA leaders used the Breakthrough Series Collaborative method, originally developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, as the model for the intervention. Expert practitioners drawn from hospitals and OPOs that had already demonstrated their ability to achieve and sustain high organ donation rates were chosen as faculty for the collaborative and best practices were gleaned from their institutions. The number of organ donors in Collaborative hospitals increased 14.1% in the first year, a 70% greater increase than the 8.3% increase experienced by non-Collaborative hospitals. Moreover, the increased organ recovery continued into the post-Collaborative periods. Between October 2003 and September 2006, the number of total US organ donors increased 22.5%, an increase 4-fold greater than the 5.5% increase measured over the same number of years in the immediate pre-Collaborative period. The study did not involve a randomized design, but time-series analysis using statistical process control charts shows a highly significant discontinuity in the rate of increase in participating hospitals concurrent with the Collaborative program, and strongly suggests that the activities of the Collaborative were a major contributor to this increase. Given the stable nature of the historical increases over many years, the HRSA estimates that more than 4000 annual additional transplants have occurred in association and apparently as a result of these increases in organ donation.

Advanced practice: implications for clinical and procurement transplant coordinators.

What is exciting about the "buzz" is that it is encouraging continuing education and knowledge acquisition. Advanced practitioners, including clinical and procurement transplant coordinators, have recognized the need to continually enhance their knowledge base, formally and informally. Whether procurement or clinical, transplant coordinators function in expanded roles by virtue of their knowledge and skills. They have been practicing at that high level with specialized, complex skills and knowledge for at least 30 years. Advanced practice is what procurement and clinical transplant coordinators do. We have met the advanced practice transplant coordinator, and we are him or her.

Increasing organ recovery from level I trauma centers: the in-house coordinator intervention.

PURPOSE: Daily presence of organ procurement organization staff in level I trauma centers combined with early family contact and interaction can increase donation rates. METHODS: A successful in-house coordinator program already in place at 2 level I trauma centers in Houston was replicated in 6 other level I trauma centers in New York City, Los Angeles, and Seattle. Organ procurement organization staff were placed inside the 8 trauma centers to provide early family support in potential donor situations and day-to-day donation system management. Comparison data were obtained on 83 level I trauma centers nationally. Data from 1999 to 2000 were compared with data from 2001 to 2002. RESULTS: Despite demographic differences, the 8 centers with in-house coordinators had higher consent rates (60% vs 53%) and conversion rates (55% vs 45%) than centers without them. Conversion of potential to actual donors was 22% higher in centers with in-house coordinators than in centers without them. Donation rates were affected by donor age, ethnicity, previous family discussion of donation, the family's initial reaction to the request (favorable, unfavorable, undecided), amount of time family spent with the in-house coordinator, presence of the in-house coordinator during explanation of brain death, whether the request was made at the same time as the brain-death explanation, and, in cases where donation was mentioned to the family before the formal request, who first mentioned donation to the family. CONCLUSIONS: In-house coordinators improve the donation process by interacting with families and staff earlier and more often during potential organ donations and improving donation systems through closer relationships with hospital staff.

Vital role of medical examiners and coroners in organ transplantation.

Many people die owing to the shortage of donor organs. Medical examiners and coroners (MEs/Cs) play a vital role in making organs available for potential recipients. Medical examiners'/coroners' case data were collected using a structured confirmatory-recorded methodology for calendar years 2000-01 and were linked and analyzed with donor and transplant data from the United Network for Organ Sharing, predicting the nature and extent of the loss of donor organs. Nearly seven percent of ME/C cases were denied recovery during 2000-01. Because 353 and likely, 411 potential organ donors (PODs) were denied, as many as 1400 persons on transplant waiting lists did not receive organs because of ME/C denials. Problematically for pediatric patients awaiting transplantation, nearly half of all ME/C denials occurred in pediatric patients. Eighteen percent of PODs aged five or less and 44.2% of child abuse PODs were denied recovery by the ME/C. There were no (zero) denials in three of the five largest U.S. cities and in four states. Since 1994, two states have enacted legislation restricting the circumstances of ME/C denials, resulting in an 83% decrease in ME/C denials. Release of all organs from ME/C cases is needed urgently to protect the lives of those persons awaiting transplantation. Medical examiners and coroners deserve recognition for their efforts in advocating methods and/or regulation/legislation designed to achieve 100% release of life-saving organs for transplantation.

Location of in-house organ procurement organization staff in level I trauma centers increases conversion of potential donors to actual donors.

BACKGROUND: Of 5810 acute care hospitals in the United States, only 3.9% (231) are Level 1 Trauma Centers (L1TCs). L1TCs have a significant number of potential organ donors (PODs). Placement of Organ Procurement Organization (OPO) staff, In House Coordinators (IHCs), directly within the L1TC to increase the number of families who consent to donate and to provide system management for the trauma center's donation program, was evaluated. METHODS: Four OPO staff, IHCs, were placed in offices inside two L1TCs in Houston, Texas. The IHCs were responsible for development of a donation system, donor surveillance, management, and most importantly, family support. RESULTS: Calendar year 2000 data on conversion of PODs to actual donors were compared between the L1TCs with IHCs (IHC-L1TC) (n=2) and trauma centers without IHCs (n=4) within the OPO's service area. IHC-L1TCs converted 44% more of the PODs to actual donors. Furthermore, the IHC-L1TCs were compared with 85 L1TCs (37% of U.S. L1TCs) without IHCs. IHC-L1TCs had a 28% greater donor consent rate and a 48% greater conversion rate of PODs to actual donors than the national L1TCs. CONCLUSIONS: L1TC status is the America College of Surgeons' highest level of verification for trauma care. To be certified as a L1TC, hospitals must meet strict criteria in both services and patient care. The donation process is often profoundly affected by the burden of demands made on the resources of these institutions and from divergent responsibilities between specialty services within the facility. Dedicated IHCs (OPO staff) are needed to provide early family intervention and to orchestrate the donation process to maximize organ recovery.

A multiethnic study of the relationship between fears and concerns and refusal rates.

This study builds on previous research that identified fears and concerns heard by procurement coordinators during the donation discussion and that classified those concerns according to the ease with which they can be addressed. In this study, 53 coordinators working for 4 procurement agencies provided data on 323 donation discussions, including fears and concerns expressed by families. The fears and concerns were analyzed by outcome (consent or refusal), race and ethnicity of the family, frequency of reports, and difficulty in addressing. This research confirms many of the findings of the earlier study. The results also indicate that the types of concerns expressed by donor and non-donor families vary somewhat by the family's race and ethnicity. The results can be used to provide training targeted at raising consent rates and to train minority requestors.