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

Introduction: Informed consent is mandatory for all (surgical) procedures, but it is even more important when it comes to living kidney donors undergoing surgery for the benefit of others. Donor education, leading to informed consent, needs to be carried out according to certain standards. Informed consent procedures for live donor nephrectomy vary per centre, and even per individual healthcare professional. The basis for a standardised, uniform surgical informed consent procedure for live donor nephrectomy can be created by assessing what information donors need to hear to prepare them for the operation and convalescence. Methods and analysis: The PRINCE (Process of Informed Consent Evaluation) project is a prospective, multicentre cohort study, to be carried out in all eight Dutch kidney transplant centres. Donor knowledge of the procedure and postoperative course will be evaluated by means of pop quizzes. A baseline cohort (prior to receiving any information from a member of the transplant team in one of the transplant centres) will be compared with a control group, the members of which receive the pop quiz on the day of admission for donor nephrectomy. Donor satisfaction will be evaluated for all donors who completed the admission pop-quiz. The primary end point is donor knowledge. In addition, those elements that have to be included in the standardised format informed consent procedure will be identified. Secondary end points are donor satisfaction, current informed consent practices in the different centres (eg, how many visits, which personnel, what kind of information is disclosed, in which format, etc) and correlation of donor knowledge with surgeons' estimation thereof. Ethics and dissemination: Approval for this study was obtained from the medical ethical committee of the Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, on 18 February 2015. Secondary approval has been obtained from the local ethics committees in six participating centres. Approval in the last centre has been sought. Results: Outcome will be published in a scientific journal

result.sav.europe.personal

Selection of the European respondents for the personal attitudes analysi

result.sav.center

Selection of respondents analyzed for the center policy analysi

result.sav.personal

Selection of respondents analyzed for the personal attitudes analysi

result.sav.europe.center

Selection of European respondents for the center policy analysi

Data from: Attitudes among transplant professionals regarding shifting paradigms in eligibility criteria for live kidney donation

Background The transplant community increasingly accepts extended criteria live kidney donors, however, great (geographical) differences are present in policies regarding the acceptance of these donors, and guidelines do not offer clarity. The aim of this survey was to reveal these differences and to get an insight in both centre policies as well as personal beliefs of transplant professionals. Methods An online survey was sent to 1128 ESOT-members. Questions were included about several extended donor criteria; overweight/obesity, older age, vascular multiplicity, minors as donors and comorbidities; hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, kidney stones, malignancies and renal cysts. Comparisons were made between transplant centres of three regions in Europe and between Europe and other countries worldwide. Results 331 questionnaires were completed by professionals from 55 countries. Significant differences exist between regions in Europe in acceptance of donors with several extended criteria. Median refusal rate for potential live donors is 15%. Furthermore, differences are seen regarding pre-operative work-up, both in specialists who perform screening as in preoperative imaging. Conclusions Remarkably, 23.4% of transplant professionals sometimes deviate from their centre policy, resulting in more or less comparable personal beliefs regarding extended criteria. Variety is seen, proving the need for a standardized approach in selection, preferably evidence based

All_results_motherdatabase

Motherfil

Imágenes de la Argentina fortificada. Tropos de las narrativas visuales acerca de los countries en las prórrogas de los 90

<div><p>Background</p><p>The transplant community increasingly accepts extended criteria live kidney donors, however, great (geographical) differences are present in policies regarding the acceptance of these donors, and guidelines do not offer clarity. The aim of this survey was to reveal these differences and to get an insight in both centre policies as well as personal beliefs of transplant professionals.</p><p>Methods</p><p>An online survey was sent to 1128 ESOT-members. Questions were included about several extended donor criteria; overweight/obesity, older age, vascular multiplicity, minors as donors and comorbidities; hypertension, impaired fasting glucose, kidney stones, malignancies and renal cysts. Comparisons were made between transplant centres of three regions in Europe and between Europe and other countries worldwide.</p><p>Results</p><p>331 questionnaires were completed by professionals from 55 countries. Significant differences exist between regions in Europe in acceptance of donors with several extended criteria. Median refusal rate for potential live donors is 15%. Furthermore, differences are seen regarding pre-operative work-up, both in specialists who perform screening as in preoperative imaging.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Remarkably, 23.4% of transplant professionals sometimes deviate from their centre policy, resulting in more or less comparable personal beliefs regarding extended criteria. Variety is seen, proving the need for a standardized approach in selection, preferably evidence based.</p></div

Overview of personal criteria questions.

<p>Overview of personal criteria questions.</p

Flow-chart of the inclusion and exclusion of the questionnaire respondents.

<p>Flow-chart of the inclusion and exclusion of the questionnaire respondents.</p