Donor Action: A Quality Assurance Program for Intensive Care Units That Increases Organ Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Donor Action (DA) is an international initiative that helps intensive care units (ICUs) improve donation. Existing best practices from around the world have been incorporated into this quality assurance program. Following a validated diagnostic review, areas of weakness in donation practices are identified and the appropriate changes introduced. Corrective measures have been developed in the form of five “core” program modules which correspond to critical steps in the donation process and can be used together or alone according to specific identified needs. Medical records review (MRR) and hospital attitude surveys (HAS) were performed in 11 ICUs in Spain (2), The Netherlands (2), the United Kingdom (1), and Canada (6). Baseline data were gathered on the units potential for donation, staff attitudes toward donation, and self-reported skills/confidence in performing a range of donation roles. Analysis of these data were used to customize the program to individual ICU requirements. MRR data from 579 cases showed a 69% (398) potential for donation from which only 31% (124) were realized. Detection and management failures (166; 42%) and refusal to donate (104; 26%) were the major reasons for loss of potential donors. The HAS returns from staff (2,129) showed consistently strong perceptions that organ donation saves lives (97%). Support for donation (94%) and willingness to donate their own organs (79%) were high in all country samples. Ratings of skills/confidence were highest for comforting the family (70%), with much lower comfort levels reported on explaining brain death (44%), introducing organ donation (38%), and presenting a family with the option for donation (31%). Following introduction of the appropriate program modules, a sustained (2–year) effect of a 33% increase in donation rates is demonstrated. The Donor Action HAS and MRR are useful tools in identifying problems within the donation process and lead to the introduction of improvement strategies integral to the Donor Action program that result in an increase in organ donation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".