No abstract

Background: Patients with kidney failure represent a major public health burden, and living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for these patients. Current work to optimize LDKT delivery to patients has focused on microlevel interventions and has not addressed interdependencies with meso and macro levels of practice. Objective: We aimed to learn from a health system with historically low LDKT performance to identify facilitators and barriers to LDKT. Our specific aims were to understand how LDKT delivery is organized through interacting macro, meso, and micro levels of practice and identify what attributes and processes of this health system facilitate the delivery of LDKT to patients with kidney failure and what creates barriers. Design: We conducted a qualitative case study, applying a complex adaptive systems approach to LDKT delivery, that recognizes health systems as being made up of dynamic, nested, and interconnected levels, with the patient at its core. Setting: The setting for this case study was the province of Quebec, Canada. Participants: Thirty-two key stakeholders from all levels of the health system. This included health care professionals, leaders in LDKT governance, living kidney donors, and kidney recipients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 32 key stakeholders and a document review were undertaken between February 2021 and December 2021. Inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes. Results: Overall, we identified strong links between system attributes and processes and LDKT delivery, and more barriers than facilitators were discerned. Barriers that undermined access to LDKT included fragmented LDKT governance and expertise, disconnected care practices, limited resources, and regional inequities. Some were mitigated to an extent by the intervention of a program launched in 2018 to increase LDKT. Facilitators driven by the program included advocacy for LDKT from individual member(s) of the care team, dedicated resources, increased collaboration, and training opportunities that targeted LDKT delivery at multiple levels of practice. Limitations: Delineating the borders of a “case” is a challenge in case study research, and it is possible that some perspectives may have been missed. Participants may have produced socially desirable answers. Conclusions: Our study systematically investigated real-world practices as they operate throughout a health system. This novel approach has cross-disciplinary methodological relevance, and our findings have policy implications that can help inform multilevel interventions to improve LDKT.

Background Living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) is the best treatment option for patients with kidney failure and offers significant medical and economic advantages for both patients and health systems. Despite this, rates of LDKT in Canada have stagnated and vary significantly across Canadian provinces, the reasons for which are not well understood. Our prior work has suggested that system-level factors may be contributing to these differences. Identifying these factors can help inform system-level interventions to increase LDKT. Objective Our objective is to generate a systemic interpretation of LDKT delivery across provincial health systems with variable performance. We aim to identify the attributes and processes that facilitate the delivery of LDKT to patients, and those that create barriers and compare these across systems with variable performance. These objectives are contextualized within our broader goal of increasing rates of LDKT in Canada, particularly in lower-performing provinces. Methods This research takes the form of a qualitative comparative case study analysis of 3 provincial health systems in Canada that have high, moderate, and low rates of LDKT performance (the percentage of LDKT to all kidney transplantations performed). Our approach is underpinned by an understanding of health systems as complex adaptive systems that are multilevel and interconnected, and involve nonlinear interactions between people and organizations, operating within a loosely bounded network. Data collection will comprise semistructured interviews, document reviews, and focus groups. Individual case studies will be conducted and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Following this, our comparative analysis will operationalize resource-based theory to compare case study data and generate explanations for our research question. Results This project was funded from 2020 to 2023. Individual case studies were carried out between November 2020 and August 2022. The comparative case analysis will begin in December 2022 and is expected to conclude in April 2023. Submission of the publication is projected for June 2023. Conclusions By investigating health systems as complex adaptive systems and making comparisons across provinces, this study will identify how health systems can improve the delivery of LDKT to patients with kidney failure. Our resource-based theory framework will provide a granular analysis of the attributes and processes that facilitate or create barriers to LDKT delivery across multiple organizations and levels of practice. Our findings will have practice and policy implications and help inform transferrable competencies and system-level interventions conducive to increasing LDKT. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/44172

Every year, over 30,000 healthy individuals globally donate a kidney to a patient with kidney failure. These living kidney donors are at higher risk of some medical complications post-donation when compared with matched controls. Although the absolute risk of these complications is low, appropriate long-term care is essential to allow early detection and timely interventions. Some transplant centers follow living donors long-term, but many recommend that donors regularly see a primary care practitioner post-donation. However, primary care is currently not integrated with transplant centers, and the two often work in silos with little to no channels of communication with each other. As this model of care is suboptimal, existing evidence suggests that post-donation care and follow-up are inadequate. We argue for an integrated model of living donor care with stronger continuity and coordination between primary care and transplant centers that are developed with the input of all relevant stakeholders.