The use of psychosocial criteria in Australian patient selection guidelines for kidney transplantation

Evaluation of the implementation of a "Pediatric Feasibility Assessment for Transplantation" tool in children and adolescents at Red Cross War Memorial Children's Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Kidney transplantation remains the treatment of choice for children with kidney failure (KF). In South Africa, kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is restricted to children eligible for transplantation. This study reports on the implementation of the Paediatric Feasibility Assessment for Transplantation (pFAT) tool, a psychosocial risk score developed in South Africa to support transparent transplant eligibility assessment in a low-resource setting.

METHODS

Single-center retrospective descriptive analysis of children assessed for KRT using pFAT tool from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS

Using the pFAT form, 88 children (median [range] age 12.0 [1.1 to 19.0] years) were assessed for KRT. Thirty (34.1%) children were not listed for KRT, scoring poorly in all domains, and were referred for supportive palliative care. Fourteen of these 30 children (46.7%) died, with a median survival of 6 months without dialysis. Nine children were reassessed and two were subsequently listed. Residing >300 km from the hospital (p = .009) and having adherence concerns (p = .003) were independently associated with nonlisting. Of the 58 (65.9%) children listed for KRT, 40 (69.0%) were transplanted. One-year patient and graft survival were 97.2% and 88.6%, respectively. Only one of the four grafts lost at 1-year posttransplant was attributed to psychosocial issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term outcomes among children listed using the pFAT form are good. Among those nonlisted, the pFAT highlights specific psychosocial/socioeconomic barriers, over which most children themselves have no power to change, which should be systemically addressed to permit eligibility of more children and save lives.

A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding Variation in Social Support Requirements and Implications for Access to Transplantation in the United States

Social support is a key component of transplantation evaluation in the United States. Social support definitions and evaluation procedures require examination to achieve clear, consistent implementation. We surveyed psychosocial clinicians from the Society for Transplant Social Workers and American Society of Transplant Surgeons about their definitions and evaluation procedures for using social support to determine transplant eligibility. Bivariate statistical analysis was used for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. Among 276 psychosocial clinicians (50.2% response rate), 92% had ruled out patients from transplantation due to inadequate support. Social support definitions varied significantly: 10% of respondents indicated their center lacked a definition. Key domains of social support included informational, emotional, instrumental, motivational, paid support, and the patient's importance to others. Almost half of clinicians (47%) rarely or never requested second opinions when excluding patients due to social support. Confidence and perceived clarity and consistency in center guidelines were significantly associated with informing patients when support contributed to negative wait-listing decisions (P = .001). Clinicians who excluded fewer patients because of social support offered significantly more supportive health care (P = .02). Clearer definitions and more supportive care may reduce the number of patients excluded from transplant candidacy due to inadequate social support.

Excluding patients from transplant due to social support: Results from a national survey of transplant providers

Social support is used to determine transplant eligibility despite lack of an evidence base and vague regulatory guidance. It is unknown how many patients are disqualified from transplantation due to inadequate support, and whether providers feel confident using these subjective criteria to determine eligibility. Transplant providers (n = 551) from 202 centers estimated that, on average, 9.6% (standard deviation = 9.4) of patients evaluated in the prior year were excluded due to inadequate support. This varied significantly by United Network for Organ Sharing region (7.6%-12.2%), and by center (21.7% among top quartile). Significantly more providers used social support in listing decisions than believed it ought to be used (86.3% vs 67.6%). Nearly 25% believed that using social support in listing determinations was unfair or were unsure; 67.3% felt it disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status. Overall, 42.4% were only somewhat or not at all confident using social support to determine transplant suitability. Compared to surgical/medical transplant providers, psychosocial providers had 2.13 greater odds of supporting the criteria (P = .03). Furthermore, 69.2% supported revised guidelines for use of social support in listing decisions. Social support criteria should be reconsidered in light of the limited evidence, potential for disparities, practice variation, low provider confidence, and desire for revised guidelines.

Nephrologists' Perspectives on Recipient Eligibility and Access to Living Kidney Donor Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Wide variations in access to living kidney donation are apparent across transplant centers. Such disparities may be in part explained by nephrologists' beliefs and decisions about recipient eligibility. This study aims to describe nephrologists' attitudes towards recipient eligibility and access to living kidney donor transplantation.

METHODS

Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted from June to October 2013 with 41 nephrologists from Australia and New Zealand. Transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We identified five major themes: championing optimal recipient outcomes (maximizing recipient survival, increasing opportunity, accepting justified risks, needing control and certainty of outcomes, safeguarding psychological wellbeing), justifying donor sacrifice (confidence in reasonable utility, sparing the donor, ensuring reciprocal donor benefit), advocating for patients (being proactive and encouraging, addressing ambivalence, depending on supportive infrastructure, avoiding selective recommendations), maintaining professional boundaries (minimizing conflict of interest, respecting shared decision-making, emphasizing patient accountability, restricted decisional power, protecting unit interests), and entrenched inequities (exclusivity of living donors, inherently advantaging self-advocates, navigating language barriers, increasing center transparency, inevitable geographical disadvantage, understanding cultural barriers).

CONCLUSIONS

Nephrologists' decisions about recipient suitability for living donor transplantation aimed to achieve optimal recipient outcomes, but were constrained by competing priorities to ensure reasonable utility derived from the donor kidney and protect the integrity of the transplant program. Comprehensive guidelines that provide explicit recommendations for complex medical and psychosocial risk factors might promote more equitable and transparent decision-making. Psychosocial support and culturally sensitive educational resources are needed to help nephrologists advocate for disadvantaged patients and address disparities in access to living kidney donor transplantation.

Transplantation rates for living- but not deceased-donor kidneys vary with socioeconomic status in Australia

Socioeconomic disadvantage has been linked to reduced access to kidney transplantation. To understand and address potential barriers to transplantation, we used the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry and examined primary kidney-only transplantation among adult non-Indigenous patients who commenced chronic renal replacement therapy in Australia during 2000-2010. Socioeconomic status was derived from residential postcodes using standard indices. Among the 21,190 patients who commenced renal replacement therapy, 4105 received a kidney transplant (2058 from living donors (660 preemptive) or 2047 from deceased donors) by the end of 2010. Compared with the most socioeconomic disadvantaged quartile, patients from the most advantaged quartile were more likely to receive a preemptive transplant (relative rate 1.93), and more likely to receive a living-donor kidney (adjusted subhazard ratio 1.34) after commencing dialysis. Socioeconomic status was not associated with deceased-donor transplantation. Thus, the association between socioeconomic status and living- but not deceased-donor transplantation suggests that potential donors (rather than recipients) from disadvantaged areas may face barriers to donation. Although the deceased-donor organ allocation process appears essentially equitable, it differs between Australian states.

If you can't comply with dialysis, how do you expect me to trust you with transplantation? Australian nephrologists' views on indigenous Australians' 'non-compliance' and their suitability for kidney transplantation

Introduction

Indigenous Australians suffer markedly higher rates of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) but are less likely than their non-Indigenous counterparts to receive a transplant. This difference is not fully explained by measurable clinical differences. Previous work suggests that Indigenous Australian patients may be regarded by treating specialists as 'non-compliers', which may negatively impact on referral for a transplant. However, this decision-making is not well understood. The objectives of this study were to investigate: whether Indigenous patients are commonly characterised as 'non-compliers'; how estimations of patient compliance factor into Australian nephrologists' decision-making about transplant referral; and whether this may pose a particular barrier for Indigenous patients accessing transplants.

Methods

Nineteen nephrologists, from eight renal units treating the majority of Indigenous Australian renal patients, were interviewed in 2005-06 as part of a larger study. Thematic analysis was undertaken to investigate how compliance factors in specialists' decision-making, and its implications for Indigenous patients' likelihood of obtaining transplants.

Results

Specialists commonly identified Indigenous patients as both non-compliers and high-risk transplant candidates. Definition and assessment of 'compliance' was neither formal nor systematic. There was uncertainty about the value of compliance status in predicting post-transplant outcomes and the issue of organ scarcity permeated participants' responses. Overall, there was marked variation in how specialists weighed perceptions of compliance and risk in their decision-making.

Conclusion

Reliance on notions of patient 'compliance' in decision-making for transplant referral is likely to result in continuing disadvantage for Indigenous Australian ESKD patients. In the absence of robust evidence on predictors of post-transplant outcomes, referral decision-making processes require attention and debate.

Psychosocial assessment prior to pediatric transplantation: a review and summary of key considerations

Prior to listing for transplantation, patients participate in a comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation. One component of this process, incorporated by the vast majority of transplant centers, is a psychosocial assessment conducted by a mental health professional. The primary objectives of a pre-transplant psychosocial assessment are to identify risk factors for difficulty adjusting post-transplant as well as behaviors that may compromise transplantation outcomes. This paper aims to provide a summary of key considerations for pediatric transplant teams describing what this assessment might include, when it should be performed, training requirements for the evaluators, how results of the evaluation might best be utilized and suggestions for optimal patient preparation. Our findings suggest that the evaluation, which can be conducted by a variety of professionals, should include assessment of patient knowledge and motivation for transplant, mental health and substance abuse history, presence or absence of family and social support, availability of financial resources, past history of treatment adherence, and the quality of the family's relationship with the transplant team. Repeat assessments and utilizing the initial evaluation for outcome assessment should be considered. Finally, the evaluation offers a unique opportunity for better preparing patients and families for transplantation.

Study Protocol--Improving Access to Kidney Transplants (IMPAKT): a detailed account of a qualitative study investigating barriers to transplant for Australian Indigenous people with end-stage kidney disease

Background

Indigenous Australians are slightly more than 2% of the total Australian population however, in recent years they have comprised between 6 and 10% of new patients beginning treatment for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Although transplant is considered the optimal form of treatment for many ESKD patients there is a pronounced disparity between the rates at which Indigenous ESKD patients receive transplants compared with their non-Indigenous counterparts. The IMPAKT (Improving Access to Kidney Transplants) Interview study investigated reasons for this disparity through a large scale, in-depth interview study involving patients, nephrologists and key decision-making staff at selected Australian transplant and dialysis sites.

Methods

The design and conduct of the study reflected the multi-disciplinary membership of the core IMPAKT team. Promoting a participatory ethos, IMPAKT established partnerships with a network of hospital transplant units and hospital dialysis treatment centres that provide treatment to the vast majority of Indigenous patients across Australia. Under their auspices, the IMPAKT team conducted in-depth interviews in 26 treatment/service centres located in metropolitan, regional and remote Australia. Peer interviewing supported the engagement of Indigenous patients (146), and nephrologists (19). In total IMPAKT spoke with Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients (241), key renal nursing and other (non-specialist) staff (95) and a small number of relevant others (28). Data analysis was supported by QSR software. At each site, IMPAKT also documented educational programs and resources, mapped an hypothetical ‘patient journey’ to transplant through the local system and observed patient care and treatment routines.

Discussion

The national scope, inter-disciplinary approach and use of qualitative methods in an investigation of a significant health inequality affecting Indigenous people is, we believe, an Australian first. An exceptionally large cohort of Indigenous participants provided evaluative comment on their health services in relation to dialysis and transplant. Additionally, the data includes extensive parallel commentary from a cohort of specialists, nurses and other staff. The study considers a ‘patient journey’ to transplant within a diverse range of Australian treatment centre/workplace settings. The IMPAKT Interview study protocol may contribute to improvements in multi-disciplinary, flexible design health services research with hard to reach or vulnerable populations in Australia and elsewhere.