Attitudes and Acceptability of Organ and Tissue Donation Registration in the Emergency Department: A National Survey of Emergency Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, there is a shortage of organs for transplantation. The number of people listed on organ donation registries can possibly be increased by promoting organ donation registration in emergency departments. We administered a national survey to assess emergency nurses’ attitudes and feelings on offering patients’ information on registering to become an organ donor in the emergency department, as well as an immediate opportunity to register. We had 130 (10.2%) responses. Of these, 61.5% of nurses feel that the emergency department is an acceptable location to promote organ donation registration. Additionally, 58.4% feel that the emergency department is an appropriate setting to offer patients and visitors an immediate opportunity to register as an organ and tissue donor while they await medical care. We identified several facilitators and barriers to a potential intervention to promote organ donation registration in the emergency department, such as public importance of increasing donation rates, the recognition of patients’ willingness to help others, and strong institutional donation culture. Some barriers were also identified, such as time constraints and departmental efficiency and flow. We also found that 80% of nurses report to be personally registered as organ donors. This study reveals that Canadian emergency nurses are very engaged and supportive of organ donation and the majority feel that the ED is an appropriate venue to promote organ donation. However, the specific mechanism by which patients are approached by emergency department staff regarding organ donation registration remains unclear.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".