Conducting cross-cultural interviews and focus groups concerning healthcare with Polish migrants in the UK - Lessons from a study on organ donation

Introduction: The Polish migrant community in the UK are under-represented in health and social care research, and are specifically under-researched with the issue of organ donation. Aim: To investigate the views of this community further, a qualitative research study examined the attitudes of Polish migrants toward organ donation. Material and methods: A series of interviews and min-focus groups were conducted with three sample groups. For the first sample, the inclusion criteria was broad, the only requirement was that the participants were English speaking Poles who lived in Luton. The second sample had a tighter inclusion criterion and excluded highly skilled professionals and students and included low skilled workers and parents of young families who were English or Polish speaking and lived in Luton and Dunstable. The third sample was solely post-war Polish migrants who lived in Luton and Dunstable. Results and discussion: This paper addresses some of the challenges overcome when researching the Polish migrant community, such as withdrawal in the recruitment phase of data collection and the use of Polish translators/interpreters. Conclusions: The study contributes toward an understanding of the use of Polish migrant communities in health research, use of professional translator/interpreter and whispered interpreters in health research and the challenges of researching organ donation within an under-represented community. Patient education and communication with UK Polish communities is an under-researched area. This study offers some insights into the challenges of engaging with a rapidly growing section of the UK population

Adherence Behavior in Subjects on Hemodialysis Is Not a Clear Predictor of Posttransplantation Adherence

© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the International Society of Nephrology. This is an openaccess article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Introduction: Nonadherence is common in both hemodialysis (HD) and kidney transplant recipients and is a major risk factor for poor clinical outcomes. This retrospective study explored whether nonadherent HD patients become nonadherent transplant recipients. Methods: Data were collected for 88 patients from the electronic patient system at a subregional renal unit about adherence to HD regimens in the 6 months before transplantation, and for 1 year posttransplantation following return transfer to the posttransplantation clinic from the transplanting center. Pretransplantation definitions of nonadherence included whether the patients: on average, shortened their dialysis prescription by >10 minutes; shortened it by >15 minutes; missed 2 or more HD sessions; and had mean serum phosphate levels >1.8mmol/l. Posttransplantation definitions of nonadherence included mean tacrolimus levels outside 5 to 10 ng/ml; and missed 1 or more posttransplantation clinic appointments. Results: Nonadherence ranged from 25% to 42% pretransplantation and from 15.9% to 22.7% posttransplantation, depending on how it was operationalized. There was little relationship between pretransplantation data and posttransplantation adherence, with the exception of a significant relationship between pretransplantation phosphate and posttransplantation clinic attendance. Patients who had missed 1 or more transplant clinic appointments had higher mean pretransplantation phosphate levels. Nonadherent patients with high phosphate levels pretransplantation and missed clinic appointments posttransplantation were significantly younger. Conclusion: Our findings provide little support for the likelihood of a strong direct relationship between pre and posttransplantation behaviors. The findings require confirmation and further research to assess whether interventions in relation to pretransplantation adherence may enhance adherence posttransplantation and improve outcomes.Peer reviewedProo

Survival advantage for patients accepting the offer of a circulatory death liver transplant.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) in the UK has tripled in the last decade. However, outcomes following DCD liver transplantation are worse than for donation after brainstem death (DBD) liver transplants. This study examines whether a recipient should accept a "poorer quality" DCD organ or wait longer for a "better" DBD organ. METHODS: Data were collected on 5,825 patients who were registered on the elective waiting list for a first adult liver-only transplant and 3,949 patients who received a liver-only transplant in the UK between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2015. Survival following deceased donor liver transplantation performed between 2008 and 2015 was compared by Cox regression modelling to assess the impact on patient survival of accepting a DCD liver compared to deferring for a potential DBD transplant. RESULTS: A total of 953 (23%) of the 3,949 liver transplantations performed utilised DCD donors. Five-year post-transplant survival was worse following DCD than DBD transplantation (69.1% [DCD] vs. 78.3% [DBD]; p <0.0001: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.65; 95% CI 1.40-1.94). Of the 5,798 patients registered on the transplant list, 1,325 (23%) died or were removed from the list without receiving a transplant. Patients who received DCD livers had a lower risk-adjusted hazard of death than those who remained on the waiting list for a potential DBD organ (adjusted HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.47-0.65). The greatest survival benefit was in those with the most advanced liver disease (adjusted HR 0.19; 95% CI 0.07-0.50). CONCLUSIONS: Although DCD liver transplantation leads to worse transplant outcomes than DBD transplantation, the individual's survival is enhanced by accepting a DCD offer, particularly for patients with more severe liver disease. DCD liver transplantation improves overall survival for UK listed patients and should be encouraged. LAY SUMMARY: This study looks at patients who require a liver transplant to save their lives; this liver can be donated by a person who has died either after their heart has stopped (donation after cardiac death [DCD]) or after the brain has been injured and can no longer support life (donation after brainstem death [DBD]). We know that livers donated after brainstem death function better than those after cardiac death, but there are not enough of these livers for everyone, so we wished to help patients decide whether it was better for them to accept an early offer of a DCD liver than waiting longer to receive a "better" liver from a DBD donor. We found that patients were more likely to survive if they accepted the offer of a liver transplant as soon as possible (DCD or DBD), especially if their liver disease was very severe

Research protocol: general practice organ donation intervention-a feasibility study (GPOD)

BACKGROUND: New interventions are required to increase the number of people donating their organs after death. In the United States of America (USA), general practice has proved to be a successful location to increase organ donor registration. However, a dearth of research exists examining this in the United Kingdom (UK). due to the unique challenges presented by the National Health Service (NHS). This protocol outlines a feasibility study to assess whether UK general practice is a feasible and acceptable location for organ donation intervention targeting NHS Organ Donor Register (NHS ODR) membership. METHODS: The primary intervention element, prompted choice, requires general practice to ask patients in consultations if they wish to join the NHS ODR. Two additional intervention techniques will be used to support prompted choice: staff training and leaflets and posters. The intervention will run for 3 months (April-July 2018) followed by a period of data collection. The following methods will be used to assess feasibility, acceptability and fidelity: registration data, a training evaluation survey, focus groups with staff and online surveys for staff and patients. DISCUSSION: By examining the feasibility, acceptability and fidelity of a prompted choice intervention in UK general practice, important knowledge can be gathered on whether it is a suitable location to conduct this. Additional learning can also be gained generally for implementing interventions in general practice. This could contribute to the knowledge base concerning the feasibility of NHS general practice to host interventions

Who should be prioritized for renal transplantation?: Analysis of key stakeholder preferences using discrete choice experiments

Background Policies for allocating deceased donor kidneys have recently shifted from allocation based on Human Leucocyte Antigen (HLA) tissue matching in the UK and USA. Newer allocation algorithms incorporate waiting time as a primary factor, and in the UK, young adults are also favoured. However, there is little contemporary UK research on the views of stakeholders in the transplant process to inform future allocation policy. This research project aimed to address this issue. Methods Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) questionnaires were used to establish priorities for kidney transplantation among different stakeholder groups in the UK. Questionnaires were targeted at patients, carers, donors / relatives of deceased donors, and healthcare professionals. Attributes considered included: waiting time; donor-recipient HLA match; whether a recipient had dependents; diseases affecting life expectancy; and diseases affecting quality of life. Results Responses were obtained from 908 patients (including 98 ethnic minorities); 41 carers; 48 donors / relatives of deceased donors; and 113 healthcare professionals. The patient group demonstrated statistically different preferences for every attribute (i.e. significantly different from zero) so implying that changes in given attributes affected preferences, except when prioritizing those with no rather than moderate diseases affecting quality of life. The attributes valued highly related to waiting time, tissue match, prioritizing those with dependents, and prioritizing those with moderate rather than severe diseases affecting life expectancy. Some preferences differed between healthcare professionals and patients, and ethnic minority and non-ethnic minority patients. Only non-ethnic minority patients and healthcare professionals clearly prioritized those with better tissue matches. Conclusions Our econometric results are broadly supportive of the 2006 shift in UK transplant policy which emphasized prioritizing the young and long waiters. However, our findings suggest the need for a further review in the light of observed differences in preferences amongst ethnic minorities, and also because those with dependents may be a further priority.</p

Artificial Intelligence and Liver Transplant:Predicting Survival of Individual Grafts

The demand for liver transplantation far outstrips the supply of deceased donor organs, and so, listing and allocation decisions aim to maximize utility. Most existing methods for predicting transplant outcomes use basic methods, such as regression modeling, but newer artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have the potential to improve predictive accuracy. The aim was to perform a systematic review of studies predicting graft outcomes following deceased donor liver transplantation using AI techniques and to compare these findings to linear regression and standard predictive modeling: donor risk index (DRI), Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD), and Survival Outcome Following Liver Transplantation (SOFT). After reviewing available article databases, a total of 52 articles were reviewed for inclusion. Of these articles, 9 met the inclusion criteria, which reported outcomes from 18,771 liver transplants. Artificial neural networks (ANNs) were the most commonly used methodology, being reported in 7 studies. Only 2 studies directly compared machine learning (ML) techniques to liver scoring modalities (i.e., DRI, SOFT, and balance of risk [BAR]). Both studies showed better prediction of individual organ survival with the optimal ANN model, reporting an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.82 compared with BAR (0.62) and SOFT (0.57), and the other ANN model gave an AUC ROC of 0.84 compared with a DRI (0.68) and SOFT (0.64). AI techniques can provide high accuracy in predicting graft survival based on donors and recipient variables. When compared with the standard techniques, AI methods are dynamic and are able to be trained and validated within every population. However, the high accuracy of AI may come at a cost of losing explainability (to patients and clinicians) on how the technology works

Preoperative intravenous iron before cardiac surgery: a prospective multicentre feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia affects one third of patients undergoing cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. Although it is recommended that perioperative teams should identify and treat patients with preoperative anaemia before surgery, introducing new treatment protocols can be challenging in surgical pathways. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of introducing a preoperative intravenous iron service as a national initiative in cardiac surgery. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, stepped, observational study using the UK Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Critical Care Research Network. The primary feasibility outcome was the ability to set up an anaemia and intravenous iron clinic at each site. The primary efficacy outcome was change in haemoglobin (Hb) concentration between intervention and operation. Secondary outcomes included blood transfusion and hospital stay. Patients with anaemia were compared with non-anaemic patients and with those who received intravenous iron as part of their routine treatment protocol. RESULTS: Seven out of 11 NHS hospitals successfully set up iron clinics over 2 yr, and 228 patients were recruited into this study. Patients with anaemia who received intravenous iron were at higher surgical risk, were more likely to have a known previous history of iron deficiency or anaemia, had a higher rate of chronic kidney disease, and were slightly more anaemic than the non-treated group. Intravenous iron was administered a median (inter-quartile range, IQR [range]) of 33 (15-53 [4-303]) days before surgery. Preoperative intravenous iron increased [Hb] from baseline to pre-surgery; mean (95% confidence interval) change was +8.4 (5.0-11.8) g L-1 (P<0.001). Overall, anaemic compared with non-anaemic patients were more likely to be transfused (49% [59/136] vs 27% (22/92), P=0.001) and stayed longer in hospital (median days [IQR], 9 [7-15] vs 8 [6-11]; P=0.014). The number of days alive and at home was lower in the anaemic group (median days [IQR], 20 [14-22] vs 21 [17-23]; P=0.033). CONCLUSION: The development of an intravenous iron pathway is feasible but appears limited to selected high-risk cardiac patients in routine NHS practise. Although intravenous iron increased [Hb], there is a need for an appropriately powered clinical trial to assess the clinical effect of intravenous iron on patient-centred outcomes

An observational study of Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation: DEVELOP-UK

Background: Many patients awaiting lung transplantation die before a donor organ becomes available. Ex vivo lung perfusion (EVLP) allows initially unusable donor lungs to be assessed and reconditioned for clinical use. Objective: The objective of the Donor Ex Vivo Lung Perfusion in UK lung transplantation study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EVLP in increasing UK lung transplant activity. Design: A multicentre, unblinded, non-randomised, non-inferiority observational study to compare transplant outcomes between EVLP-assessed and standard donor lungs. Setting: Multicentre study involving all five UK officially designated NHS adult lung transplant centres. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with advanced lung disease accepted onto the lung transplant waiting list. Intervention: The study intervention was EVLP assessment of donor lungs before determining suitability for transplantation. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was survival during the first 12 months following lung transplantation. Secondary outcome measures were patient-centred outcomes that are influenced by the effectiveness of lung transplantation and that contribute to the health-care costs. Results: Lungs from 53 donors unsuitable for standard transplant were assessed with EVLP, of which 18 (34%) were subsequently transplanted. A total of 184 participants received standard donor lungs. Owing to the early closure of the study, a non-inferiority analysis was not conducted. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of survival at 12 months was 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 0.83] for the EVLP arm and 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85) for the standard arm. The hazard ratio for overall 12-month survival in the EVLP arm relative to the standard arm was 1.96 (95% CI 0.83 to 4.67). Patients in the EVLP arm required ventilation for a longer period and stayed longer in an intensive therapy unit (ITU) than patients in the standard arm, but duration of overall hospital stay was similar in both groups. There was a higher rate of very early grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD) in the EVLP arm, but rates of PGD did not differ between groups after 72 hours. The requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support was higher in the EVLP arm (7/18, 38.8%) than in the standard arm (6/184, 3.2%). There were no major differences in rates of chest radiograph abnormalities, infection, lung function or rejection by 12 months. The cost of EVLP transplants is approximately £35,000 higher than the cost of standard transplants, as a result of the cost of the EVLP procedure, and the increased ECMO use and ITU stay. Predictors of cost were quality of life on joining the waiting list, type of transplant and number of lungs transplanted. An exploratory model comparing a NHS lung transplant service that includes EVLP and standard lung transplants with one including only standard lung transplants resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £73,000. Interviews showed that patients had a good understanding of the need for, and the processes of, EVLP. If EVLP can increase the number of usable donor lungs and reduce waiting, it is likely to be acceptable to those waiting for lung transplantation. Study limitations include small numbers in the EVLP arm, limiting analysis to descriptive statistics and the EVLP protocol change during the study. Conclusions: Overall, one-third of donor lungs subjected to EVLP were deemed suitable for transplant. Estimated survival over 12 months was lower than in the standard group, but the data were also consistent with no difference in survival between groups. Patients receiving these additional transplants experience a higher rate of early graft injury and need for unplanned ECMO support, at increased cost. The small number of participants in the EVLP arm because of early study termination limits the robustness of these conclusions. The reason for the increased PGD rates, high ECMO requirement and possible differences in lung injury between EVLP protocols needs evaluation

Trust, Nostalgia and Narrative Accounts of Blood Banking in England in the 21st Century

Historically, cultural accounts and descriptions of blood banking in Britain have been associated with notions of altruism, national solidarity and imagined community. While these ideals have continued to be influential, the business of procuring and supplying blood has become increasingly complex. Drawing on interview data with donors in one blood centre in England, this article reports that these donors tend not to acknowledge the complex dynamics of production and exchange in modern blood systems. This, it is argued, is congruent with nostalgic narratives in both popular and official accounts of blood services, which tend to bracket these important changes. A shift to a more open institutional narrative about modern blood services is advocated, as blood services face current and future challenges