Sequential liver and kidney living donors: Making the ultimate gift twice

There are nearly 150 living donors in the United States who donated more than one solid organ. Using our divisional database, we found 20 individuals who donated a liver and a kidney at different times. We performed a retrospective chart review of these donors, studying their motivating factors, complications and outcomes. The donors included 11 (55%) males and nine females. Thirteen (65%) donated the kidney before the liver. Fourteen (70%) were nondirected donors at the first donation, and four of the six directed donors in the first donation became nondirected in the second donation. Seventeen (85%) were nondirected at the second donation. Common reasons for donating the second time were a good experience with the first donation and knowing that one can donate again. Outcomes and the incidence of early complications were not significantly different after the 2nd versus the 1st donation. All donors recovered and currently are doing well. Our results show a significant number of dual organ donors are nondirected and motivated by their strong desire to help. A positive experience with the 1st donation often was the driving factor for the 2nd. A history of previous organ donation did not negatively impact the 2nd donation.

What motivates occasional faculty developers to lead faculty development workshops? A qualitative study

PURPOSE

The demand for faculty development is ongoing, and many medical schools will need to expand their pool of faculty developers to include physicians and scientists whose primary expertise is not education. Insight into what motivates occasional faculty developers can guide recruitment and retention strategies. This study was designed to understand the motivations of faculty developers who occasionally (one to three times each year) lead faculty development workshops.

METHOD

Qualitative data were collected in March and April 2012 from interviews with faculty developers who occasionally taught workshops from 2007 to 2012 in the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine's faculty development program. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The authors thematically analyzed the transcripts using a general inductive approach and developed codes sensitized by motivation theories.

RESULTS

The authors interviewed 29/30 (97%) occasional faculty developers and identified five themes: mastery (desire to learn and develop professionally), relatedness (enjoyment of working with and learning from others), duty (sense of obligation to give back and be a good academic citizen), purpose (commitment to improving local teaching and ultimately patient care), and satisfaction (fun and enjoyment).

CONCLUSIONS

Four of the themes the authors found are well addressed in motivation theory literature: mastery, relatedness, duty, and purpose. Whereas these four are motivators for occasional faculty developers, it is the fifth theme-satisfaction-that the authors feel is foundational and links the others together. Armed with this understanding, individuals leading faculty development programs can develop strategies to recruit and retain occasional faculty developers.