MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2753425635 · doi:10.1097/01.tp.0000525152.60921.30

The Impact of Funding and Program Structure on the Performance of Organ Donation Organizations in Canada

2017· article· en· W2753425635 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Amber Appleby

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Établissements canadiensCanadian Blood Services
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOrgan donationDonationBusinessMedicineFamily medicinePolitical scienceTransplantationSurgeryLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Canada’s performance in deceased organ donation lags behind that of high performing countries and the demand of waitlisted transplant candidates is not being met. We performed a scan of the literature to determine key funding-related components of deceased donation to determine high priority areas for investment. We also surveyed literature on the economic and financial benefits of transplant compared to non-transplant medical care. This literature scan informed the development of a survey and interview conducted of organ donation organizations and donation programs in Canada. The purpose was to gain understanding of the practices of the most successful jurisdictions in Canada, to investigate which financial factors contributed to success in those jurisdictions, to investigate financial barriers that hinder improvement, and to determine if a correlation exists between performance within a province and donation program funding within that province. Five areas were identified that were key components to the success of high performing jurisdictions and critical areas of improvement for those that are underperforming. These were: structure and processes of donation programs, prioritization of new funding, optimization of existing funding and consideration of new approaches, performance and accountability measures, and supporting and guiding these changes with robust research. This study supports the conclusion that a minimum level of funding is required to sustain a functioning deceased donation system and that provinces that invest more seem to outperform others. This report serves to provide an increased understanding of how organ donation is currently funded in Canada, identify key differences that exist between jurisdictions, and provides an overview of current challenges. It is hoped that this information will serve as a resource for donation programs and provincial ministries to guide policy and improve equity of access to organ donation and transplantation across Canada. Sam D. Shemie. Peter Nickerson. References 1. Organ Donation and Transplantation in Canada: System Progress Report 2006‐2015 Ottawa ON: Canadian Blood Services; 2016 [cited 2016 October 10, 2016]. Available from: https://blood.ca/sites/default/files/ODT_Report.pdf. 2. The Madrid Resolution on Organ Donation and Transplantation. Transplantation. 2011;91:S29-S31. doi: 10.1097/01.tp.0000399131.74618.a5. PubMed PMID: 00007890-201106151-00004. 3. Delmonico FL, Dominguez-Gil B, Matesanz R, Noel L. A call for government accountability to achieve national self-sufficiency in organ donation and transplantation. Lancet. 2011;378(9800):1414–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61486-4. PubMed PMID: 22000137. 4. The Declaration of Istanbul on Organ Trafficking and Transplant Tourism. Istanbul Summit April 30-May 2, 2008. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2008;23(11):3375–80. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfn553. PubMed PMID: 18922861. 5. IRODaT: International Registry in Organ Donation and Transplantation: Donation and Transplantation Institute; 2016 [cited 2016 November 22]. September 2016:[Available from: http://www.irodat.org/img/database/pdf/NEWSLETTER2016_SecondEdition.pdf. 6. Gill JS, Klarenbach S, Barnieh L, Caulfield T, Knoll G, Levin A, et al. Financial incentives to increase Canadian organ donation: quick fix or fallacy? Am J Kidney Dis. 2014;63(1):133–40. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2013.08.029. PubMed PMID: 24200461. 7. Call to Action: A strategic plan to improve organ and tissue donation and transplantation performance for Canadians Ottawa ON: Canadian Blood Services; 2012 [cited 2016 November 22]. Available from: http://www.organsandtissues.ca/s/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/OTDT-INDX-final-C2A.pdf. 8. Deceased Organ Donor Potential in Canada. Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2014 December 2014. Report No. 9. Trifunov R. Deceased Organ Donor Potential in Canada - A Review and Estimate from Past Studies and Sources. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Blood Services; 2010. 10. Rudge C, Matesanz R, Delmonico FL, Chapman J. International practices of organ donation. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108 Suppl 1:i48-55. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer399. PubMed PMID: 22194431. 11. Evans RW, Orians CE, Ascher NL. The potential supply of organ donors. An assessment of the efficacy of organ procurement efforts in the United States. JAMA. 1992;267(2):239–46. PubMed PMID: 1727520. 12. Sheehy E, Conrad SL, Brigham LE, Luskin R, Weber P, Eakin M, et al. Estimating the number of potential organ donors in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(7):667–74. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa021271. PubMed PMID: 12917304. 13. Kramer AH, Zygun DA, Doig CJ, Zuege DJ. Incidence of neurologic death among patients with brain injury: a cohort study in a Canadian health region. CMAJ. 2013;185(18): E838-45. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.130271. PubMed PMID: 24167208; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3855144. 14. Matesanz R, Dominguez-Gil B. Strategies to optimize deceased organ donation. Transplantation Reviews. 2007;21(4):177–88. 15. Overview: National Reform Agenda. Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority, 2011. 16. Organs for Transplants: A report from the Organ Donation Taskforce. Organ Donation Taskforce, 2008. 17. Živčić-Ćosić S, Bušić M, Župan Ž, Pelčić G, Ivanovski M, Rački S. Development of the Croatian model of organ donation and transplantation. Croatian medical journal. 2013;54(1):65–70. 18. Van Gelder E, de Roey J, Desschans B, Van Hees D, Aerts R, Monbaliu D, et al. What is the limiting factor for organ procurement in Belgium: donation or detection? What can be done to improve organ procurement rates? Acta Chir Belg. 2008;108(1):27–30. PubMed PMID: 18411568. 19. Matesanz R, Dominguez-Gil B, Coll E, de la Rosa G, Marazuela R. Spanish experience as a leading country: what kind of measures were taken? Transpl Int. 2011;24(4):333–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2010.01204.x. PubMed PMID: 21210863. 20. Performance Report 2011: Australian Government Ogran and Tissue Authority; 2011 [December 1, 2016]. Available from: http://www.donatelife.gov.au/sites/default/files/2011_donation_and_transplantation_performance_report.pdf. 21. Major Milestone for Organ Donation [Internet]. National Health Service Blood and Transplant; 2011; October 21, 2011. Available from: http://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/news-and-media/news-archive/news_2011_10_21.asp. 22. Mendeloff J, Ko K, Roberts MS, Byrne M, Dew MA. Procuring organ donors as a health investment: how much should we be willing to spend? Transplantation. 2004;78(12):1704–10. PubMed PMID: 15614139. 23. Matesanz R, editor Factors that influence the development of an organ donation program. Transplantation proceedings; 2004: Elsevier. 24. Relevant Legislation [cited 2016 November 22]. Available from: http://www.aopo.org/advocacy/legislative. 25. About OPOs: Association of Organ Procurement Organizations; [cited 2016 December 8]. Available from: http://www.aopo.org/about-opos/. 26. Ozcan YA, Begun JW, McKinney MM. Benchmarking organ procurement organizations: a national study. Health Serv Res. 1999;34(4):855–74; discussion 75‐8. PubMed PMID: 10536974; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC1089045. 27. Evans RW. Organ procurement expenditures and the role of financial incentives. JAMA. 1993;269(24):3113–8; discussion 55–6. PubMed PMID: 8505813. 28. Organ Donation in Quebec in 2014 [Internet]. Transplant Quebec; 2015. Decrease in the number of deceased organ donors, and slight increase in the number of people on the waiting list for a transplantation; February 17. Available from: http://www.transplantquebec.ca/sites/default/files/organ_donation_2014.pdf. 29. Commissioning Transplantation to 2020. National Services Division, 2015 Contract No.: November 22. 30. Longworth L. Organs for Transplants - Review of the evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of solid organ trasnplantation (heart, liver, lung and pancreas). Brunel University, Group HER; 2010. 31. Zelmer JL. The economic burden of end-stage renal disease in Canada. Kidney Int. 2007;72(9):1122–9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ki.5002459. PubMed PMID: 17700643. 32. Rabeau Y. The Economics of Kidney Failure. The Kidney Foundation of Canada, 2012. 33. Annual Report 2014/15. Toronto, ON: Trillium Gifl of Life Network, 2015. 34. Flatt A, Krueger H. Costing Solid Organ Transplant Procedures in British Columbia. BC Transplant, 2009 November 20. Report No. 35. Preliminary Financial Impact Analysis: BC Transplant Redesign. BC Transplant. 36. Financial Statements of British Columbia Transplant Society Branch. BC Transplant, 2016. 37. Current Statistics - December 1, 2016. BC Transplant, 2016 December 1. Report No. 38. e-Statistics Report on Transplant, Waiting List and Donor Statistics. Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2014. 39. Dor A, Pauly MV, Eichleay MA, Held PJ. End-stage renal disease and economic incentives: the International Study of Health Care Organization and Financing (ISHCOF). Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2007;7(2–3):73‐111. doi: 10.1007/s10754-007-9024-9. PubMed PMID: 17653860. 40. ODTEAC Meeting Minutes. Organ Donation and Transplantation Expert Advisory Committee; 2016 November 25, 2016.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,166
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,967

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,026
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,002
Communication savante0,0050,001
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,280
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTransplantationMême sujetOrgan Donation and TransplantationTravaux en français237 207