A Comparison of Kidney Paired Donation Education Delivery Across 68 National Kidney Registry-Affiliated Centers
A. Waterman1, E. H. Wood1, O. N. Ranasinghe1, J. L. Beaumont2, S. McGuire3, K. Miller4, V. Chipman5, J. Sinacore6, M. Cooper7
1Division of Nephrology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 2Terasaki Research Institute, Los Angeles, CA, 3UCLA Kidney and Pancreas Transplant Programs, Los Angeles, CA, 4UW Health, Madison, WI, 5UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, 6National Kidney Registry, Babylon, NY, 7Medstar Georgetown Transplant Institute, Washington, DC
Meeting: 2020 American Transplant Congress
Abstract number: A-026
Keywords: Kidney transplantation, Patient education, Psychosocial, Public policy
Session Information
Session Name: Poster Session A: Kidney Paired Exchange
Session Type: Poster Session
Date: Saturday, May 30, 2020
Session Time: 3:15pm-4:00pm
Presentation Time: 3:30pm-4:00pm
Location: Virtual
*Purpose: To understand the kidney paired donation (KPD) educational delivery process and variation across centers affiliated with the National Kidney Registry (NKR) we surveyed transplant coordinators at 85 centers about their processes and compared centers with high (>62) versus low KPD (≤62) transplant volumes since the inception of the NKR.
*Methods: 90 transplant coordinators from 68 centers (80% response) completed the survey (86% female, 82% white).
*Results: A majority (68%) served as the dedicated KPD educator/primary NKR coordinator; 56% had ≤5 years’ experience educating about KPD. While most educated all recipients who present for evaluation about the option of KPD (60%), others only educated when the pair was incompatible (18%). Similarly, most introduced KPD with donors prior to their first visit to the center (68%) and educated all (60%) versus educating only potential donors who were incompatible with their recipient (16%). Centers that had a designated NKR coordinator were more likely to educate all potential donors about KPD compared to other centers (69% vs. 41%). Providers spent < 30 minutes discussing the option of KPD with donors (63%) and recipients (68%). Providers’ education consisted of disseminating brochures (68% recipient;76% donor), referrals to review the NKR website (68% recipient;73% donor), opportunities to meet a KPD recipient (30%) or donor (41%) and videos and websites.
*Conclusions: High KPD volume centers were more likely to use videos produced by their center to educate recipients (29% vs. 11%) and donors (33% vs. 9%), share media stories about KPD (92% vs. 45%) and embed KPD content on their center’s website (33% vs. 9%) compared to lower volume centers. Across NKR centers, time spent educating about KPD, educational resources disseminated, and opportunities to learn about KPD early in the donor and recipient evaluation process varied.
To cite this abstract in AMA style:
Waterman A, Wood EH, Ranasinghe ON, Beaumont JL, McGuire S, Miller K, Chipman V, Sinacore J, Cooper M. A Comparison of Kidney Paired Donation Education Delivery Across 68 National Kidney Registry-Affiliated Centers [abstract]. Am J Transplant. 2020; 20 (suppl 3). https://atcmeetingabstracts.com/abstract/a-comparison-of-kidney-paired-donation-education-delivery-across-68-national-kidney-registry-affiliated-centers/. Accessed November 22, 2024.« Back to 2020 American Transplant Congress