An Environmental Scan and Evaluation of Quality Indicators Across Canadian Kidney Transplant Centers

Self Cite

Purpose of the Conference: The 2022 Banff-Canadian Society of Transplantation Meeting in Banff, Alberta, brought together transplant professionals to review new developments across various aspects of solid organ transplantation (SOT) in Canada. Sources of Information: Presentations included consensus recommendations from expert-led forums; experiences with new procedures and legislation; reports from public health data repositories; original clinical and laboratory research; and industry updates regarding novel technologies. Speakers referenced articles and reports published in peer-reviewed journals and online, and unpublished data and preliminary findings. Methods: All authors attended presentations in-person or virtually. Recordings of select presentations were available for later review. Summaries emphasize concepts indicated by speakers as new and clinically relevant. Key Findings: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs), who experience worse outcomes of COVID-19 infection than the general population. Vaccinations demonstrate an attenuated immunological response in SOTRs yet provide meaningful protection. Monoclonal antibodies are effective for both passive immunization and treatment of COVID-19 in SOTRs. Infection control protocols have driven the development of virtual methods for clinical research, such as using home blood draws and virtual follow-up to evaluate vaccine efficacy in SOTRs; and patient care delivery, such as employing telerehabilitation post transplant. Access to living kidney donation is limited by various disincentives experienced by potential donors, which may be overcome by more efficient evaluations including a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic. The International Donation and Transplantation Legislative and Policy Forum provided a means of establishing consensus guidance for organ donation and transplantation (ODT) program policy to standardize delivery across jurisdictions. The implementation of a deemed consent model for organ and tissue donation in Nova Scotia may provide insight as to whether this model indeed improves access to organs. Canada’s Indigenous population experiences unique barriers to transplantation, prompting efforts for more inclusive ODT policy-making. The Pan-Canadian ODT Data and Performance Reporting System Project has defined performance quality indicators, of which iTransplant and other point-of-care software solutions may facilitate collection; however, these endeavors ultimately require information technology infrastructure that exceeds the capabilities of the existing Canadian Organ Replacement Register and Canadian Transplant Registry. Pig-to-human xenotransplantation requires genetic modification of pigs and xenoantibody testing in recipients but may yet prove viable. Serum cell-free DNA, urine biomarkers, and genetic markers offer an alternative to routine biopsy for identifying subclinical rejection. Modified perfusion temperatures and perfusion solutions with hydrogen sulfide donor compounds may improve organ preservation. Molecular compatibility tools provide another means of improving SOTR outcomes, and the Genome Canada Transplant Consortium has been examining important considerations of their implementation. Limitations: We were unable to capture all presentations and topics at the meeting due to the sizable quantity and variety. Topics ultimately excluded from this summary include those in pathology including Banff Classification updates; those unique to extra-renal SOT; as well as numerous abstract and poster presentations, allied health provider forums, and business meetings. A portion of the material was presented by speakers prior to peer-review or publication. Implications: The various conference presentations summarized in this report identify methods by which individual clinicians and provincial ODT programs may improve access, delivery, and quality of SOT care in Canada, while additionally identifying gaps in the literature that investigators are encouraged to pursue.

Section: Key Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Updates in Kidney Transplantation From the 2022 Banff-Canadian Society of Transplantation Joint Meeting: Conference Report

Carrigan,

Mathur,

Bourgeois

et al. 2023

Self Cite

“… 14 , 15 The length of the donor assessment is a quality metric used in some Canadian transplant programs. 16 In this report, we describe the development, implementation, and early lessons learned of the first One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic launched in Ontario, Canada. This is a condensed clinic where donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic to Improve the Efficiency of the Living Kidney Donor Evaluation: Program Report

Yohanna,

Naylor,

Sontrop

et al. 2024

Purpose of program: A key barrier to becoming a living kidney donor is an inefficient evaluation process, requiring more than 30 tests (eg, laboratory and diagnostic tests), questionnaires, and specialist consultations. Donor candidates make several trips to hospitals and clinics, and often spend months waiting for appointments and test results. The median evaluation time for a donor candidate in Ontario, Canada, is nearly 1 year. Longer wait times are associated with poorer outcomes for the kidney transplant recipient and higher health care costs. A shorter, more efficient donor evaluation process may help more patients with kidney failure receive a transplant, including a pre-emptive kidney transplant (ie, avoiding the need for dialysis). In this report, we describe the development of a quality improvement intervention to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and patient-centeredness of the donor candidate evaluation process. We developed a One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic, a condensed clinic where interested donor candidates complete all testing and consultations within 1 day. Sources of information: The One-Day Living Kidney Donor Assessment Clinic was developed after performing a comprehensive review of the literature, receiving feedback from patients who have successfully donated, and meetings with transplant program leadership from St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton. A multistakeholder team was formed that included health care staff from nephrology, transplant surgery, radiology, cardiology, social work, nuclear medicine, and patients with the prior lived experience of kidney donation. In the planning stages, the team met regularly to determine the objectives of the clinic, criteria for participation, clinic schedule, patient flow, and clinic metrics. Methods: Donor candidates entered the One-Day Clinic if they completed initial laboratory testing and agreed to an expedited process. If additional testing was required, it was completed on a different day. Donor candidates were reviewed by the nephrologist, transplant surgeon, and donor coordinator approximately 2 weeks after the clinic for final approval. The team continues to meet regularly to review donor feedback, discuss challenges, and brainstorm solutions. Key findings: The One-Day Clinic was implemented in March 2019, and has now been running for 4 years, making iterative improvements through continuous patient and provider feedback. To date, we have evaluated more than 150 donor candidates in this clinic. Feedback from donors has been uniformly positive (98% of donors stated they were very satisfied with the clinic), with most noting that the clinic was efficient and minimally impacted work and family obligations. Hospital leadership, including the health care professionals from each participating department, continue to show support and collaborate to create a seamless experience for donor candidates attending the One-Day Clinic. Limitations: Clinic spots are limited, meaning some interested donor candidates may not be able to enter a One-Day Clinic the same month they come forward. Implications: This patient-centered quality improvement intervention is designed to improve the efficiency and experience of the living kidney donor evaluation, result in better outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, and potentially increase living donation. Our next step is to conduct a formal evaluation of the clinic, measuring qualitative feedback from health care professionals working in the clinic and donor candidates attending the clinic, and measuring key process and outcome measures in donor candidates who completed the one-day assessment compared with those who underwent the usual care assessment. This program evaluation will provide reliable, regionally relevant evidence that will inform transplant centers across the country as they consider incorporating a similar one-day assessment model.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In recent years, there has been a growing focus on developing the scope of QI work within nephrology. This has ranged from a national initiative to categorize and prioritize quality indicators currently in use, [4][5][6][7] to a growing body of literature providing guidance on the development of QI initiatives in improving aspects of kidney care, [8][9][10][11][12] to various local QI initiatives. [13][14][15] With this growth comes the need to ensure that QI activities are implemented in an ethically responsible manner, and that we have systems of oversight in place that can thoughtfully and efficiently provide direction on important ethical considerations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Improvement in Canadian Nephrology: Key Considerations in Ensuring Thoughtful Ethical Oversight

Glavinovic

Hingwala

Harris

2022

Self Cite

Purpose of review: Quality improvement (QI) work is a cornerstone of health care, and a growing area within nephrology. With such growth comes the need to ensure that QI activities are implemented in an ethically responsible manner. The existing institutional research board (IRB) framework has largely focused on reviewing the ethical suitability of traditional research projects, and it can be challenging to know if QI initiatives require formal ethics oversight. Several tools have been developed to assist in distinguishing between the two, such as the “A pRoject Ethics Community Consensus Initiative” tool. Our objective was to demonstrate how QI is distinct from research, to outline how QI-focused IRB process is used across Canada, and to develop a practical aid for clinicians embarking on QI-related projects. Sources of information: Publicly available institutional Web sites from academic and select nonacademic sites across Canada. Methods: Institutional Web sites across all academic centers within Canada were examined to determine local QI-specific ethics review processes. We have provided examples of QI processes from select community sites. We have developed a tool to assist clinicians navigate the ethical challenges of QI projects and to determine whether their project may require ethics approval. Key findings: This overview of the considerations of the research ethics approval process helps clinicians to determine whether IRB approval is required for QI studies. Examples of the current ethical processes employed in both academic and community institutions across Canada demonstrate the variability between centers. We have included examples of fictional nephrology-oriented QI initiatives to illustrate when ethics approval may be considered, along with a flowchart. This summary highlights the opportunity for QI-specific IRB review processes to be standardized across Canada, along with the need for creation of a separate stream with dedicated expertise for QI project review. Limitations: We did not do a formal environmental scan of the QI IRB review process in all hospital institutions across Canada.