Towards a standardised informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: the PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project-study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

Risk Assessment and Management for Potential Living Kidney Donors: The Role of “Third-Party” Commission

Living kidney donation is the most common type of living-donor transplant. Italian guidelines allow the living donations from emotionally related donors only after clear and voluntary consent expressed by both the donor and the recipient involved. Living donation raises ethical and legal issues because donors voluntarily undergo a surgical procedure to remove a healthy kidney in order to help another person. According to the Italian standards, the assessment of living donor-recipient pair has to be conducted by a medical “third party”, completely independent from both the patients involved and the medical team treating the recipient. Starting from the Hospital “Città della Salute e della Scienza” of Turin (Italy) experience, including 116 living kidney donations, the Authors divided the evaluation process performed by the “Third-Party” Commission into four stages, with a particular attention to the potential donor. Living donation procedures should reflect fiduciary duties that healthcare providers have toward their patients, originating from the relationship of trust between physician and patient. In addition to that, the social implications are enormous if one considers the worldwide campaigns to promote public awareness about organ donation and transplantation, and to encourage people to register their organ donation decisions. The systematic process proposed here can be a tool that proactively reduces and controls the risks of coercion, organ trafficking, vitiated consent, insufficient weighting of donative choice, that could arise especially in donors involved in living kidney donation.

Living Kidney Donor Knowledge of Provided Information and Informed Consent: The PRINCE Study

Background: Informed consent for living kidney donation is paramount, as donors are healthy individuals undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. The informed consent process for living kidney donors is heterogenous, and the question concerns how well they are actually informed. Knowledge assessments, before and after donor education, can form the basis for a standardized informed consent procedure for live kidney donation. Methods: In this prospective, a multicenter national cohort study conducted in all eight kidney transplant centers in The Netherlands, we assessed the current status of the informed consent practice for live donor nephrectomy. All of the potential living kidney donors in the participating centers were invited to participate. They completed a pop quiz during their first outpatient appointment (Cohort A). Living kidney donors completed the same pop quiz upon admission for donor nephrectomy (Cohort B). Results: In total, 656 pop quizzes were completed (417 in Cohort A, and 239 in Cohort B). The average donor knowledge score was 7.0/25.0 (±3.9, range 0–18) in Cohort A, and 10.5/25.0 (±2.8, range 0–17.5) in Cohort B. Cohort B scored significantly higher on overall knowledge, preparedness, and the individual item scores (p < 0.0001), except for the long-term complications (p = 0.91). Conclusions: Donor knowledge generally improves during the live donor workup, but it is still quite disappointing. Long-term complications, especially, deserve more attention during living kidney donor education.

Usability assessment of an interactive health technology for kidney living donors: protocol for a prospective cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

Several web portals for kidney patients are available, but assessments of their performance are scarce. A crucial aspect of living donation is to provide standardised information about the risks of the procedure. This is of particular interest among candidates for kidney living donation. In 2019, the Digital Care Path for Living Kidney Donor Candidates was launched in Finland as part of the Health Village portal, containing information about the donation process and facilitating communication between clinicians, transplant coordinators and patients. The performance of this eHealth service has not yet been studied. The present study will investigate living donor candidates' experience with the Health Village and Digital Care Path for Living Kidney Donor Candidates. Participants' general attitudes towards the use of eHealth services will also be explored as a secondary objective.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A prospective cross-sectional survey study will take place. Participants will be kidney donor candidates who have used the digital care path since its implementation in January 2019 up to 1 March 2021 (N=122). The surveys will include demographic data, electronic device ownership and digital health literacy. Platform's ease of use will be assessed with the System Usability Scale. Open-ended questions will be used to gather suggestions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The research protocol has been approved by the Helsinki University Hospital ethical committee (HUS/501/2021) to ensure that the work is done in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki and Declaration of Istanbul. Recruitment will start during the first semester of 2021. Initial results are expected during the second semester of 2021.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04791670; Pre-results.

Pre-emptive live donor kidney transplantation-moving barriers to opportunities: An ethical, legal and psychological aspects of organ transplantation view

Live donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the optimal treatment modality for end stage renal disease (ESRD), enhancing patient and graft survival. Pre-emptive LDKT, prior to requirement for renal replacement therapy (RRT), provides further advantages, due to uraemia and dialysis avoidance. There are a number of potential barriers and opportunities to promoting pre-emptive LDKT. Significant infrastructure is needed to deliver robust programmes, which varies based on socio-economic standards. National frameworks can impact on national prioritisation of pre-emptive LDKT and supporting education programmes. Focus on other programme’s components, including deceased kidney transplantation and RRT, can also hamper uptake. LDKT programmes are designed to provide maximal benefit to the recipient, which is specifically true for pre-emptive transplantation. Health care providers need to be educated to maximize early LDKT referral. Equitable access for varying population groups, without socio-economic bias, also requires prioritisation. Cultural barriers, including religious influence, also need consideration in developing successful outcomes. In addition, the benefit of pre-emptive LDKT needs to be emphasised, and opportunities provided to potential donors, to ensure timely and safe work-up processes. Recipient education and preparation for pre-emptive LDKT needs to ensure increased uptake. Awareness of the benefits of pre-emptive transplantation require prioritisation for this population group. We recommend an approach where patients approaching ESRD are referred early to pre-transplant clinics facilitating early discussion regarding pre-emptive LDKT and potential donors for LDKT are prioritized for work-up to ensure success. Education regarding pre-emptive LDKT should be the norm for patients approaching ESRD, appropriate for the patient’s cultural needs and physical status. Pre-emptive transplantation maximize benefit to potential recipients, with the potential to occur within successful service delivery. To fully embrace preemptive transplantation as the norm, investment in infrastructure, increased awareness, and donor and recipient support is required.

Towards a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy: What do surgeons tell their donors?

INTRODUCTION

Living kidney donors comprise a unique group of "patients", undergoing an operation for the benefit of others. The informed consent process is therefore valued differently. Although this is a team effort, the surgeon is responsible for performing the donor nephrectomy, and often the one held accountable, should adverse events occur. Although there is some consensus on how the informed consent procedure should be arranged, practices vary. The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy, with special regards to disclosure of complications.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to all kidney transplant surgeons (n = 50) in eight transplant centers with questions regarding the local procedure and disclosure of specific details.

RESULTS

Response rate was 98% (n = 49), of which 32 (65%) were involved in living donor education; overall, transplant- (50%), vascular- (31%), and abdominal surgeons (13%), and urologists (6%) performed donor nephrectomies in the eight centers. Informed consent procedures varied, ranging from assumed to signed consent. Bleeding was the only complication every surgeon mentioned. Risk of death was always mentioned by 16 surgeons (50%), sometimes by 13 (41%), three surgeons (9%) never disclosed this disastrous complication. Reported mortality rates ranged from 0.003% to 0.1%. Mentioning frequencies for all other complications varied.

CONCLUSION

Important complications are not always disclosed during the surgical informed consent process for live donor nephrectomy. Informed consent procedures vary. To optimally prepare living kidney donors for the procedure, a standardized informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy is highly recommended.